Talk:Obfuscation

message: Is Obfuscation always done intentionally ?
=== Yes ===
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)
thread_title:  Intent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral POV 

message: 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 toremains 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)
thread_title:  Perhaps a Neutral POV was once illegal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage in enterprise software? 

message: #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)
thread_title:  Reference Issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  White-box Cryptography redirect loop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categorization