Exceleram has recently announced the launch of new memory module that promises to deliver good value for money.

Unlike most of the marketing today, Exceleram has kept it in the most generic way, named E30200A, the modules are provided without a heatsink, which is most probably intended to create the value for money product.

Working at 1333MHz with 9-9-9-24 latencies and 1.5V, it isn’t too bad for 8GB, more so for people looking to get what they pay for without breaking the bank, it’s right on the target.

Priced at just $49.99 for an 8GB kit, you are now able to have a 16GB dual-channel kit for just shy of $100.

Currently the 8GB DDR3-1333 E30200A is scheduled for the US, but it will most probably see the light in Europe as well.

Source

For AMD this could be a good opportunity to try and play catch up whilst continuing to dominate the low end market with its value for money AM3 Athlon II range and its current FM1 APUs which are providing low end PCs with a new lease of life as the onboard graphics are being greatly improved. AMD vs Intel….the battle rages on.

Source

Mr Hunt said:
“Fast broadband is absolutely vital to our economic growth, to delivering public services effectively, and to conducting our everyday lives”.

“But some areas of the UK are missing out, with many rural and hard-to-reach communities suffering painfully slow internet connections or no coverage at all. We are not prepared to let some parts of our country get left behind in the digital age”.

The breakdown is as follows:

1. Bedfordshire – £1,060,000
2. Berkshire – £1,430,000
3. Buckinghamshire – £2,100,000
4. Cambridgeshire – £6,750,000
5. Cheshire – £3,240,000
6. Cornwall & Isles of Scilly – £0 (presumed covered by BT measures)
7. Cumbria – £17,130,000
8. Derbyshire – £7,390,000
9. Devon & Somerset – £31,320,000
10. Dorset – £9,440,000
11. Durham – £7,790,000
12. East Sussex – £10,640,000
13. Essex – £6,460,000
14. Gloucestershire – £8,070,000
15. Greater London – £0 (presumed covered privately)
16. Greater Manchester – £990,000
17. Hampshire & the Isle Of Wight – £8,420,000
18. Herefordshire – £6,350,000
19. Hertfordshire – £1,110,000
20. Humber – £8,540,000 (subject to revision)
21. Kent – £9,870,000
22. Lancashire – £10,830,00
23. Leicestershire & Rutland – £3,880,000
24. Lincolnshire – £14,310,000
25. Merseyside – £5,460,000
26. Norfolk – £15,440,000
27. Northamptonshire – £4,080,000
28. Northumberland – £7,030,000
29. North Yorkshire – £17,840,000
30. Nottinghamshire – £4,250,000
31. Oxfordshire – £3,860,000
32. Shropshire – £8,210,000
33. South Yorkshire – £0 (presumed covered by digital region limited)
34. Staffordshire – £7,440,000
35. Suffolk – £11,880,000
36. Surrey – £1,310,000
37. Tees Valley – £770,000
38. Tyne and Wear – £3,420,000
39. Warwickshire – £4,070,000
40. West of England – £1,430,000
41. West Midlands – £630,000
42. West Sussex – £6,260,000
43. West Yorkshire – £6,340,000

The aim of the scheme is to have 90% of the UK having access to at least 2mbps by the year 2015, Mr Hunt has urged those with frustratingly slow connections to contact their local elected representatives to push for better connections in their areas.

The private sector is said to be covering around two thirds of the UK, the funding from the BDUK is for those area’s deemed in need not those that necessarily have more people living or working in a particular county.

While Facebook is “The Social Giant Site” Google has been quickly on it’s tail ever since releasing Google+. While many users are transitioning over to Google+ via friend invites, Google has been quickly pursuing some of the same features “The Facebook” have.

Do you remember when it was called “The Facebook”, I surely do. While Sean Parker (the inventor of Napster) suggested an innovative change to the name of “The Facebook” to just Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg also had other ideas for his site. By allowing Game Developers to develop games that would sit inside the “bowels” of Facebook. Yes, you heard it from me, “the bowels of Facebook,” the place where lives are painstakingly lost due to the addiction that is “The Social Giant Site.” However, why would Mr. Zuckerberg want to have games developed for his site, unless, unless of course he was making a profit. Yes that must be it, a profit, and not just a small profit as a matter of fact. Practically a third of the profit that the game developers would be generating, would go to Mr. Zuckerberg. While he may have set out to create a Social Networking Site that would eventually be worth Millions and Millions of Dollars, he could not help but to add ads or even worse add applications, to even further push his revenue. Nope, greed set in and he decided he needed a chunk of change from game developers. That my friends, is the story of why Facebook has games now.

However, Google has now gotten into the social networking field. Google+ while it has caught many people’s attention, it has lost some people’s attention due to a lack of “fun.” While fun to some people might mean a stroll in the park, or hanging out with friends and family. Some people would much rather sit behind a computer screen for hours on end playing Flash Games. While this writer can see some benefits to games on a place that is Social, I cannot help but wonder why the social engineering sites of yesteryear no longer are what they used to be. Ok, end rant…

Now with this new innovation to Google+ also comes money. Once again the game developers have to share some of their profits, with Google, however the sum is not nearly as large as “The Social Networking Giants.” Google is only charging game developers a modest 5% on profits for their games. Thus bringing in a money war between Facebook and Google. If I were a game developer, I would ditch Facebook and go with the place that I retain most of my profits. Google for the Win?

Now where is my cup of coffee?

Source