This icm calculator gona keyloggin my moniez?

ok so today i downloaded a couple programs that a friend of mine thinks might have about a 5% of being a keylogger, or have a keylogger in the file download. I downloaded it from http://www.sngegt.com/

Was wondering if anyone else has used this program and can confirm there is no keylogger

reformat imo

I used the program when I was a fish. No clue if it works or whatever, and it was on a computer I've since thrown away. For what it's worth, I had the program on my computer for at least 6 months without any problems lol. But I also had such little money on poker, that if I had been keylogged they were probably too lazy to steal my measly monies

Hah. You can run a scan to see if it's modifying and files and if they're getting bigger when you type. What I would worry more about is if it's connecting to the internet. Even if it's logging keystrokes, if it never sends them to anyone, then you've got nothing to worry about.

I would be very surprised if there was anything malicious in that software. I remember reading a book that recommended sngegt and most authors would fully test a program before recommending it.

5% chance of being a keylogger? WDF - how can your friend possibly know that? What we have here is case of friend acting like he knows something when he actually knows nothing i.e. talkin a load of bollocks.

Thanks for advice everyone.

also he didn't claim to know anything it's just an estimate. We can take estimates on everyday things with sample sizes. Sometimes our sample sizes are a bit off though.

I estimate there's a 5% chance your friend is a tard, my sample size = your post

i think your sample size range is a bit polarized

just get the RSA token

Feiticeira your sample size should be made up of all posts similar to mine and the truthful outcome. Not just my post.

For example, if there are 130 posts on the internet forums stating that their friend thinks this program has between 2-7.5% of being a keylogger, and 14 of their friends have some form of retardation. Then 10.8% of them would be retarded.

Your sample size is 1 post, it is not accurate enough for an assumption of retardation.

On March 10 2010 16:04 Stroggos wrote:Your sample size is 1 post, it is not accurate enough for an assumption of retardation.

Your friends sample size isn't even that large, it is not accurate enough for an assumption by percentages or probability of anything.

how is he sure that it is 5% im more tempted to believe its 4.57%

On March 11 2010 12:52 bongky wrote: how is he sure that it is 5% im more tempted to believe its 4.57%

It's 5% plus or minus 100% was what his friend meant.

On March 11 2010 12:02 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On March 10 2010 16:04 Stroggos wrote:Your sample size is 1 post, it is not accurate enough for an assumption of retardation. Your friends sample size isn't even that large, it is not accurate enough for an assumption by percentages or probability of anything.

you are right, i made this post to disprove him.

On March 11 2010 12:02 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On March 10 2010 16:04 Stroggos wrote:Your sample size is 1 post, it is not accurate enough for an assumption of retardation. Your friends sample size isn't even that large, it is not accurate enough for an assumption by percentages or probability of anything.

Wrong. 1 post is enough to determine retardation.

lol army of retards here :D

On March 15 2010 10:36 YouGoTGoT wrote: Show nested quote + On March 11 2010 12:02 taco wrote:   On March 10 2010 16:04 Stroggos wrote:Your sample size is 1 post, it is not accurate enough for an assumption of retardation. Your friends sample size isn't even that large, it is not accurate enough for an assumption by percentages or probability of anything. Wrong. 1 post is enough to determine retardation.

It is Stroggos that is wrong by your logic.
Not me.