Talk:Obfuscation
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intent
[edit]Is Obfuscation always done intentionally ?
Yes
[edit]My understanding is that whenever obfuscation is referring to an unintentional behavior, it comes with a pejorative connotation. --Joannes Vermorel (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Neutral POV
[edit]It is vital that such a project keeps a neutral point of view in its content. I literally spit out my tea laughing whist reading "(also see Internal Revenue Code)", but such humorous jabs will be deleted from this article. Xoxxixxox (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a Neutral POV was once illegal
[edit]In exactly the same vein as Xoxxixxox's comment above (only without the tea-laugh), I find the following article text to be far from neutral. It cites '420' as an obfuscation code-word for recreational ...
... cannabis consumption, an activity which despite legalisation changes, was once illegal in most jurisdictions.
To me, the term ... was once illegal ... strongly implies that it has since become legal. I suspect that a momentarily lapse of neutrality was behind it, because the implication is far from being true.
In case the momentary-lapser-of-neutrality is interested, the recreational use of cannabis is legal in 7 countries out of 208, plus parts of 2 more. These two:
- USA: legal in 19 of 50 States, 2 of 5 Territories, and D.C., for a US total of 22 of its 56 jurisdictions (39.3% of USA)
- Australia: legal in 1 of 10 territories and 0 of 6 states, for an Aussie total 1 of its 16 jurisdictions (6.4% of AUS).
This means that it is illegal in the other 97.4% of the world
(as of May 2022, and where 97.4% = 1 - ((7 + 22/56 + 1/16) / 208).
T think that justified changing the text to
remains illegal in most jurisdictions.
Perhaps I should add Your jurisdiction may differ.
The meaning of despite, and that 420 is the cannabis itself, not the consumption thereof (so I am told), can be put aside for another day.
ChrisJBenson (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Usage in enterprise software?
[edit]At Lokad.com (disclaimer: I am working for this company), we are routinely using obfuscation for big enterprise clients. The process is detailed at http://www.lokad.com/obfuscation.ashx . In short, obfuscation removes most of the need for our clients to actually trust Lokad as a 3rd party forecasting component. Such a usage might be worth of inclusion within the article. --Joannes Vermorel (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Reference Issue
[edit]- 4 relating to Mark Twain's, Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses, goes nowhere but to a dead line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsean666 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It could go here instead: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsean666 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
White-box Cryptography redirect loop
[edit]Hi
White-box cryptography redirects to this page, and this page also has a link to white-box cryptography. This creates a potentially confusing redirect loop. Can we please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePenultimateOne (talk • contribs) 02:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Categorization
[edit]Previously, Category:Obfuscation was a subcategory of Category:Censorship. However, i reversed it, so that now Category:Censorship is a subcategory of Category:Obfuscation; i felt it would be more appropriate that way. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)