That is why you need to save your iOS signatures, so you can restore to 4.0.1 at any time, even when apple stops signing.
Use this tool to do it: http://thefirmwareumbrella.blogspot.com/
When graphics cards overheat, the worst thing that happens is a blue screen. On ATI cards, they just restart the card (it does a recovery-mode type of thing).
You can overclock any card to insane temperatures (90C+) without them even turning off, much less breaking them. There is simply no way that Starcraft 2 is killing any graphics cards.
There *was* one issue with an nvidia patch a while back which a driver update actually did kill some graphics cards, but it was nvidia's fault, and they promptly fixed it.
This article is pure misinformation.
I think you're doing it wrong, and here's why. In the interest of full disclosure, I play WoW, Counter-Strike, and QuakeWorld. Also, I can't understand EVE (but I tried).
I'm getting quite sick of games with small learning curves - the ones who's mechanics you can master in less than a month without any special instruction.
Depending on your definition of "mechanics", mastering them should be quite easy in less than a month. For example, one can learn the mechanics of Chess, in a day or so. The rules aren't particularly complicated, but to reach any level of interesting play, it can take years.
My point is that the mechanics *should* be simple. When they're complex, you end up with EVE; and I think there's a general consensus that EVE is impossible for outsiders to comprehend enough to appreciate, let alone play for themselves. I've tried playing it, and my experience is that the game is completely inaccessible to those with anything but a dedicated interest in playing EVE. My guess would be that most EVE players are probably close friends with other EVE players, or they would never have been able to overcome the learning curve (or lack thereof) in the first place.
If you have a chance to watch the Portal "Director's Commentary", they explain precisely how the learning curve was developed for that game, and the rationale behind it based on feedback testing.
The ones that become a game of who went deeper into the dungeon for the better armor, who buys the more expensive weapon, who can snap-aim better (which takes skill, but is not a particularly interesting one).
But not true. At the highest levels of play, all people are geared similarly with armor and weapons, and they can all aim. It's already assumed at being at a high level of play.
Competitive WoW players already have their full sets. Competitive Quake players have insanely good aim. That's why, when you reach that level of play, you no longer have to worry about armor or aim. It's built-in. Check out the discussions going on over at the Elitist Jerks forums for WoW. Or go watch some QuakeWorld videos. Or if you have the patience to setup nQuake, go download it and watch some QuakeWorld demos
Sure, you might find cases where the winner is decided by having a super rare WoW-drop, or where someone's lightning gun or rail gun is what wins the match based on exceptionally good aim. But for the most part, it becomes a game of strategy.
MMO's are very big into number-crunching, like the kind you'll find at Elitist Jerks. FPS's are very big into demo watching and strategy. Keep in mind, however, that it's only at very high levels of play that you'll see this.
The good games, in my opinion, are easy enough for anyone to pick up, but complex enough that only the most dedicated can reach the highest levels of play. WoW does this very well. Quake is too inaccessible, and suffers from a lack of players (even bad ones) as a consequence. Counter-strike has a different problem, where the game isn't very good at high levels of play, but it is very accessible. The FPS is difficult to get right in a way that doesn't alienate newbies or pros. EVE is an enigma in the sense that it even survives at all. (Someone feel free to explain this to me.)
Give me something rewarding, where I can be playing a year or two later and still improving my skill. Items are cool, but after a while they don't cut it.
And that's why there's a casual gaming market. You're asking that a game neither be too hard that you can't pick it up nor too easy that it doesn't feel rewarding. You should pick a game that has both a large enough following that skill makes a difference at the end-game stages, while it is accessible enough that you can still pwn on noobz that want to play. I think what you really want someone to give you is competitive-level play, and it sounds like you haven't experienced it with games yet.
If you want me to kick your ass in Quake to prove the point, I can... provided you can get it installed, configure the game properly, and figure out how to join a server. Then after I beat you flawlessly, I can invite someone else to beat me flawlessly, and you'll be left with an appreciation of how wide the skill range can be.
There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak