All you need to do is some form of watermarking which ties the bought tune to a particular buyer, and so prevents copying and sharing.
While I agree with most of your comment in theory, the above line is simply not true. Being able to identify the original distributor would certainly help an RIAA lawsuit, it would do absolutely nothing to keep the thousands of people or downloaded or re-shared the file from playing or redistributing it.
Try this example: Bob buys $10,000 worth of music. He shares it with the Internet and gets caught. He gets fined $4 zillion dollars and they take away his computer. But there's already $10,000 worth of music in the P2P networks, and it is all registered to Bob, who has already been caught. What does your scheme do to prevent re-sharing?
Or this one: Bob buys some music, loads his iPod. Bob leaves his iPod on the bus. Alice picks up the iPod, copies all the unencrypted music off of it and shares it on the Interweb. The RIAA finds on these tracks and identified Bob. Bob is not liable for the distribution of the music (not that he'd win the case, but he's not liable) nor can Bob be tied in any meaningful way to Alice.
Or on a smaller scale: Bob, Jim, Bill and Alice create a single fake account and each person funds $100 into the account. They buy $400 worth of music and make 3 extra copies. They never distribute the music to anyone else so they'll never get caught, but they have $1200 worth of illegally copied music files.
If the terminal the customer thought they were using was not making charges, and that store's owner was not in on the plot, there's a good chance the owner would figure it out in short order -- he wouldn't be getting any money from sales that used that card terminal. And even if he was in on it he'd still be losing money for the items he's giving away without any payment. It seems unlikely that this plot could go undiscovered for very long.
Except permits wouldn't actually lead to an inspection of the devices before they were put up, it would work like all other permits: 1. I stand in line for 45 minutes 2. Someone hands me a form 3. I complete the form that includes the following (unverified) information:
Name
Address
Device description
Posting location(s) 4. I stand in line for 45 minutes 5. I hand someone a check and the completed form 6. They hand me a receipt and a copy of the form 7. I go post things, and show cops who harass me my form
Even if you made permit applicants bring in a device for inspection there's no guarantee they would actually post that device and not say, a bomb with that device strapped to the front. Then when someone calls in the suspicious device the police pull up your permit and send an officer by to inspect the device. Since your device looks substantially similar to the picture/description in the permit the police don't do anything. Now you have a government approved an inspected bomb. That definitely seems more safe.
For that matter, even if delivered all your devices to the city, and had city employees post them, you could simply go to one of the devices later and strap a bomb to the back.
Frankly I don't think it's reasonable to do much (if anything) to protect ourselves from dedicated bombers. Even if you made it illegal to leave any backpacks, signs, etc. with or without lights, with or without a permit on a subway platform or bridge, what's to stop the guy from just carrying the backup, or paying someone else (who doesn't even know it's a bomb) to do the same? I'm not willing to travel sedated and naked to protect myself from dedicated bombers.
Couldn't the onus be on the accuser to say, I don't know, prove that their accusation? Something like innocent until proven guilty? I know it's novel concept but we could, in fact, just assume that people are acting within the law until they demonstrate otherwise. Yes, people could use that assumption to do bad things, but it also lets people who aren't doing bad things get on with their lives without inteference.
The company is explaining to you that you will bare the burden of proof of ownership
That's pattently ridiculous. They aren't explaining anything, nor are you entering any sort of agreement with them, written or otherwise, they're just documenting the transaction. I don't need the receipt to prove ownership, and depending on the specificity and verifiable authenticity of the receipt, it may not even be very useful to that effect.
Take for example a reciept that says "Jan 14: Company A: Services Rendered: $98.00: Cash Tendered: $98.00". Being in possetion of such a document is not proof of any of the following: 1) That any services were rendered, 2) that you recieved any services if they were rendered, 3) that you paid $98.00. There's some evidence that there was an agreement to render services and that someone gave Company A $98.00, but there's no evidence of your involvement, or that the services specified were actually rendered. In such a case a work log from Company A that shows an that an employee was dispatched to render services is probably much better evidence than the receipt. Likewise your personally accounting statements (self-generated or otherwise) may be more useful in proving that you personally rendered payment.
In any case, handing me a reciept is not sufficient cause for you to challenge my ownership of anything, nor is my failure to retain that receipt sufficient evidence that I am not the owner.
There are certainly some advantages to three-phase power. There are some disadvantages too. In any application where conductor size is not a limiting factor, the number of wires may be a larger expense than the gauge. And there's the issue of keeping load balanced between phases, which is not a trivial problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear before, but I'm not trying to claim that brushed DC motors are more efficient than split-phase AC induction motors. Rather that there aren't any particular application restrictions for DC vs AC based on torque or the like, and that in any application where the control circuit for a BLDC motor wouldn't be prohibitive (anything that currently has a variable-speed AC motor, most large appliances, etc.), that a BLDC motor is at least as efficient.
It was also my understanding that the Honda Civic uses a variable-speed synchronous motor with a control circuit that runs straight off the batteries. I guess you could call the input waveform "AC" but when you're talking about a variable speed brushless motor DC vs. AC is kind of a moot point. Am I mistaken or is the Civic an exception to the rule?
Old, brushed DC motors are not efficient that's true. But modern brushless DC motors are essentially identical to their variable-speed synchronous AC motor counterparts in both construction and efficency. In fact, the variable-frequency drive that runs the variable-speed synchronous AC motor rectifies incoming power to DC in order to create the output waveform.
DC power works just fine for electric motors. Non-synchronous AC induction motors are not particularly efficient nor do they have any increased torque or power output over DC brushed or brushless motors. The only advantage I see in fixed-speed applications is that AC induction motors require less maintenance in application where DC brushless would be too expensive. Those devices exist, but they don't include your A/C, fridge, washing machine, dishwasher, or any other device that cost more than $20 or so.
Modern variable speed AC motors (i.e. 3-phase AC motors) require a variable-frequency drive controller, which rectifies incoming power to DC before creating the control waveform. Such motors could be run on DC power without any significant conversion, and with a net efficiency *gain*, as they would no longer need to rectify incoming power. There's essentially no difference in the physical construction of synchronous AC motors and DC brushless motors -- it's just a question of the control method and input waveform.
I'll just copy and paste this from above, to help fight the bad science:
DC travels just fine, it's the low-voltage part that increases transmission losses. AC or DC, low-voltage power experiences greater tranmission losses than the same power transfer at a higher voltage.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power. It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents [wikipedia.org] for futher discussion.
DC travels just fine, it's the low-voltage part that increases transmission losses. AC or DC, low-voltage power experiences greater tranmission losses than the same power transfer at a higher voltage.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power. It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents for futher discussion.
"Real-time" in an entry-teaching-level controller application is probably on the order of 0.01 seconds, or maybe even 0.1 seconds, which is well within the tolerance of a generic linux system. I know it won't *guarnatee* that response window, but the system would have to be awfully busy to miss a 0.1 second execution window.
H.264 + AAC is, in fact, a standard MPEG-4/AVC video. The wrapper format recommended by ISO/IEC in 14496-12 through 14496-15 is essentially a QuickTime.mov file. There's not reason AVI or Ogg, NUT, or Matroska wrappers wouldn't work also, but the recommended format is closer to.mov than any of those alternatives.
There's essentially no loss of quality going to CD, other than the 48kHz to 44.1kHz re-sampling. It's only if you re-compress in another lossy format that you lose quality.
First, the errors in space flight we were discussing have never been the result of complicated arithmetic, they were the result of mis-applied unit conversion. It's not like space probes come equiped with some guy with a slide rule to do calculations -- the computer is no more likely to mis-calculate 12.685 * 39.553 than 10.000 * 22.934.
Second, the only operation that SI units simplify is same-type unit conversion. This is almost never a problem in automation, because unlike people there's no reason to measure some things in inches and other in miles -- you can measure everything in inches and just have very large numbers of inches. Even in SI units there will still be complicated arithmetic when you combine different types of units. For example, I know how much mass my space probe has, and how fast it's spinning -- how much thrust is required, and for what period, to stop the spinning? That calculation is not simplified at all by using SI units, as all of the coefficents are just as complex as they are in US customary units.
Finally, kg/cm^2 *is* a valid unit of pressure if you're using kg-force and not kg-mass. Just as pounds is a valid unit of mass if you're using lbs-mass and not lbs-force. The naming is unfortunate if you move into non-near-earth locations, but given the relatively constant gravitational acceleration near the earth's surface there is no practical reason that that units of force and mass cannot be freely interchanged. If you're going to whine about the misapplication about kg as a force you should whine about the thousands of scales around the world that read units of grams, kg, or some other unit of mass while actually measuring the downward force applied by the mass.
Coordination is good and all, but there's nothing inherently superior about SI units over US customary units. And even if every measurement tool, design program, manufacturing machine and socket set in the US was converted to SI units, you'd still have to deal the conversion, and that conversion would still be susceptible to the sorts of errors you're whining about.
Moreover, it's not even as simple as a one-time conversion. There's also the hassle of filling your A/C with what used to be 10.0 lbs of coolant and is now 4.5359237 kg, or any of the other conversions you'd have to continue to do for decades to support existing devices and infastructure that weren't designed around the new system of units.
Just a note about Dice: The company in question was only able to collect information from Dice because you provided that information and marked it as searchable. There's no requirement that you have an account, or that it be active, searchable or non-confidential to use any of the job search or application functions on Dice (as opposed to Monster for example, which requires that you have an account and sign in to apply for jobs). If you just want to search for jobs without letting employeers search for you either don't create an account or mark your account inactive.
We all know that sitting in the same room as someone else doing exactly the same thing you are could never lead to a conversation, and that watching movies generally does. There's no reason to point out the obvious you nerd.
MacroVision is not an aspect of the player, it's an aspect of the media (though in digital media the signal is often inserted by the player, as it would not surive the encoding process). Studio-produced tapes may be MacroVision "protected", to prevent that particular piece of media from being cleanly copied (without a MacroVision supressor). Tapes that you record at home do not include the MacroVision signal, no matter how new your VCR.
So you mis-understand my post, quote a bit of my post out of context but in the same thread, tell me I'm wrong, and yet I'm an ass for pointing out that you didn't properly read the original post? I'll keep that in mind.
If you're going to do that you might as well hook up the Ethernet cable and have network access. It's still physically connecting to the printer -- not exactly a covert operation.
This whole discussion is about how corporations A) shouldn't have "rights" or B) shouldn't have the power of ownership. Several of the parent posts talk about basically disolving the entire concept of non-individual ownership in the context of corporations not deserving "rights" or privileges under the law.
Click "parent" a couple of times and take a look at the to which you first replied. I spoke of "some pretty convincing arguements for the existance of legal entities with the power to own things and execute contracts" in reply to a post that argued against the power of ownership for corportions with "Uh, they wouldn't own the copyrights because they wouldn't have any rights as an individual." I then provided an example of trying to do business without any sort of organizing legal entity, partnership or otherwise. You replied to that with "Wrong" and provided links to pages about partnerships, which as far as I can tell, are some sort of organizing legal entity.
Your points might be valid if someone was arguing about how an unlimited partnership is the only form of business organization, but we're not. If you're not going to read parent posts you probably shouldn't start your reply with "Wrong" -- it won't turn out well.
First, an almost trivial change supported by many if not most printers is to allow print jobs only from a certain host or set of hosts. HP's JetDirect cards can even read that list of hosts from a DHCP parameter, so you don't have to update all your printers if the queue changes.
Since this is only an IP-based security solution it can be overcome, but it's not as trivial as plugging your computer into the network and installing the print drivers, at least not if the network is reasonably secured in the first place.
If you've got your printers on a isolated Ethernet segment, and you should if you're trying to control access to them, traffic sent from a spoofed print-server address on the workstation network segment should never make it to the printer segment. Unless you've got unused, active ports on the printer segment, an attacker would likely have to physically disconnect something on the printer segment and attach a hub to send packets with an appropriate fake IP address. Again it could be done, but it's not trivial.
That's not to say anyone actually sets up their printers or networks this way, but it is a reasonably secure way to enforce use of the print queue.
Slashdot Mirror
On the phone their "they're"s and "theirs" are all the same, so it's not a problem. It's just on /. that they can't cross the street safely.
Since the legal staff hired a perl programmer, circa 1998.
All you need to do is some form of watermarking which ties the bought tune to a particular buyer, and so prevents copying and sharing.
While I agree with most of your comment in theory, the above line is simply not true. Being able to identify the original distributor would certainly help an RIAA lawsuit, it would do absolutely nothing to keep the thousands of people or downloaded or re-shared the file from playing or redistributing it.
Try this example:
Bob buys $10,000 worth of music. He shares it with the Internet and gets caught. He gets fined $4 zillion dollars and they take away his computer. But there's already $10,000 worth of music in the P2P networks, and it is all registered to Bob, who has already been caught. What does your scheme do to prevent re-sharing?
Or this one:
Bob buys some music, loads his iPod. Bob leaves his iPod on the bus. Alice picks up the iPod, copies all the unencrypted music off of it and shares it on the Interweb. The RIAA finds on these tracks and identified Bob. Bob is not liable for the distribution of the music (not that he'd win the case, but he's not liable) nor can Bob be tied in any meaningful way to Alice.
Or on a smaller scale:
Bob, Jim, Bill and Alice create a single fake account and each person funds $100 into the account. They buy $400 worth of music and make 3 extra copies. They never distribute the music to anyone else so they'll never get caught, but they have $1200 worth of illegally copied music files.
If the terminal the customer thought they were using was not making charges, and that store's owner was not in on the plot, there's a good chance the owner would figure it out in short order -- he wouldn't be getting any money from sales that used that card terminal. And even if he was in on it he'd still be losing money for the items he's giving away without any payment. It seems unlikely that this plot could go undiscovered for very long.
Except permits wouldn't actually lead to an inspection of the devices before they were put up, it would work like all other permits:
1. I stand in line for 45 minutes
2. Someone hands me a form
3. I complete the form that includes the following (unverified) information:
Name
Address
Device description
Posting location(s)
4. I stand in line for 45 minutes
5. I hand someone a check and the completed form
6. They hand me a receipt and a copy of the form
7. I go post things, and show cops who harass me my form
Even if you made permit applicants bring in a device for inspection there's no guarantee they would actually post that device and not say, a bomb with that device strapped to the front. Then when someone calls in the suspicious device the police pull up your permit and send an officer by to inspect the device. Since your device looks substantially similar to the picture/description in the permit the police don't do anything. Now you have a government approved an inspected bomb. That definitely seems more safe.
For that matter, even if delivered all your devices to the city, and had city employees post them, you could simply go to one of the devices later and strap a bomb to the back.
Frankly I don't think it's reasonable to do much (if anything) to protect ourselves from dedicated bombers. Even if you made it illegal to leave any backpacks, signs, etc. with or without lights, with or without a permit on a subway platform or bridge, what's to stop the guy from just carrying the backup, or paying someone else (who doesn't even know it's a bomb) to do the same? I'm not willing to travel sedated and naked to protect myself from dedicated bombers.
Couldn't the onus be on the accuser to say, I don't know, prove that their accusation? Something like innocent until proven guilty? I know it's novel concept but we could, in fact, just assume that people are acting within the law until they demonstrate otherwise. Yes, people could use that assumption to do bad things, but it also lets people who aren't doing bad things get on with their lives without inteference.
The company is explaining to you that you will bare the burden of proof of ownership
That's pattently ridiculous. They aren't explaining anything, nor are you entering any sort of agreement with them, written or otherwise, they're just documenting the transaction. I don't need the receipt to prove ownership, and depending on the specificity and verifiable authenticity of the receipt, it may not even be very useful to that effect.
Take for example a reciept that says "Jan 14: Company A: Services Rendered: $98.00: Cash Tendered: $98.00". Being in possetion of such a document is not proof of any of the following: 1) That any services were rendered, 2) that you recieved any services if they were rendered, 3) that you paid $98.00. There's some evidence that there was an agreement to render services and that someone gave Company A $98.00, but there's no evidence of your involvement, or that the services specified were actually rendered. In such a case a work log from Company A that shows an that an employee was dispatched to render services is probably much better evidence than the receipt. Likewise your personally accounting statements (self-generated or otherwise) may be more useful in proving that you personally rendered payment.
In any case, handing me a reciept is not sufficient cause for you to challenge my ownership of anything, nor is my failure to retain that receipt sufficient evidence that I am not the owner.
There are certainly some advantages to three-phase power. There are some disadvantages too. In any application where conductor size is not a limiting factor, the number of wires may be a larger expense than the gauge. And there's the issue of keeping load balanced between phases, which is not a trivial problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear before, but I'm not trying to claim that brushed DC motors are more efficient than split-phase AC induction motors. Rather that there aren't any particular application restrictions for DC vs AC based on torque or the like, and that in any application where the control circuit for a BLDC motor wouldn't be prohibitive (anything that currently has a variable-speed AC motor, most large appliances, etc.), that a BLDC motor is at least as efficient.
It was also my understanding that the Honda Civic uses a variable-speed synchronous motor with a control circuit that runs straight off the batteries. I guess you could call the input waveform "AC" but when you're talking about a variable speed brushless motor DC vs. AC is kind of a moot point. Am I mistaken or is the Civic an exception to the rule?
Old, brushed DC motors are not efficient that's true. But modern brushless DC motors are essentially identical to their variable-speed synchronous AC motor counterparts in both construction and efficency. In fact, the variable-frequency drive that runs the variable-speed synchronous AC motor rectifies incoming power to DC in order to create the output waveform.
Yes, I'm pretty sure. Check out the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents or some of the companies selling products for in-home DC power: http://www.moixaenergy.com/about-us.asp
DC power works just fine for electric motors. Non-synchronous AC induction motors are not particularly efficient nor do they have any increased torque or power output over DC brushed or brushless motors. The only advantage I see in fixed-speed applications is that AC induction motors require less maintenance in application where DC brushless would be too expensive. Those devices exist, but they don't include your A/C, fridge, washing machine, dishwasher, or any other device that cost more than $20 or so.
Modern variable speed AC motors (i.e. 3-phase AC motors) require a variable-frequency drive controller, which rectifies incoming power to DC before creating the control waveform. Such motors could be run on DC power without any significant conversion, and with a net efficiency *gain*, as they would no longer need to rectify incoming power. There's essentially no difference in the physical construction of synchronous AC motors and DC brushless motors -- it's just a question of the control method and input waveform.
I'll just copy and paste this from above, to help fight the bad science:
DC travels just fine, it's the low-voltage part that increases transmission losses. AC or DC, low-voltage power experiences greater tranmission losses than the same power transfer at a higher voltage.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power. It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents [wikipedia.org] for futher discussion.
DC travels just fine, it's the low-voltage part that increases transmission losses. AC or DC, low-voltage power experiences greater tranmission losses than the same power transfer at a higher voltage.
The only reason that we have AC at the wall is because we didn't have a DC, solid-state equivalent of the transformer in 1900, and therefore it was difficult to create high-voltage DC power. It's fairly widely acknowledge that if we had access to high-voltage direct current tranmissions systems a hundred years ago we would have DC power at the wall today. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents for futher discussion.
"Real-time" in an entry-teaching-level controller application is probably on the order of 0.01 seconds, or maybe even 0.1 seconds, which is well within the tolerance of a generic linux system. I know it won't *guarnatee* that response window, but the system would have to be awfully busy to miss a 0.1 second execution window.
Display it with 0.4" borders and whine when you go to print to a printer that won't accept them, just like it does now.
H.264 + AAC is, in fact, a standard MPEG-4/AVC video. The wrapper format recommended by ISO/IEC in 14496-12 through 14496-15 is essentially a QuickTime .mov file. There's not reason AVI or Ogg, NUT, or Matroska wrappers wouldn't work also, but the recommended format is closer to .mov than any of those alternatives.
There's essentially no loss of quality going to CD, other than the 48kHz to 44.1kHz re-sampling. It's only if you re-compress in another lossy format that you lose quality.
First, the errors in space flight we were discussing have never been the result of complicated arithmetic, they were the result of mis-applied unit conversion. It's not like space probes come equiped with some guy with a slide rule to do calculations -- the computer is no more likely to mis-calculate 12.685 * 39.553 than 10.000 * 22.934.
Second, the only operation that SI units simplify is same-type unit conversion. This is almost never a problem in automation, because unlike people there's no reason to measure some things in inches and other in miles -- you can measure everything in inches and just have very large numbers of inches. Even in SI units there will still be complicated arithmetic when you combine different types of units. For example, I know how much mass my space probe has, and how fast it's spinning -- how much thrust is required, and for what period, to stop the spinning? That calculation is not simplified at all by using SI units, as all of the coefficents are just as complex as they are in US customary units.
Finally, kg/cm^2 *is* a valid unit of pressure if you're using kg-force and not kg-mass. Just as pounds is a valid unit of mass if you're using lbs-mass and not lbs-force. The naming is unfortunate if you move into non-near-earth locations, but given the relatively constant gravitational acceleration near the earth's surface there is no practical reason that that units of force and mass cannot be freely interchanged. If you're going to whine about the misapplication about kg as a force you should whine about the thousands of scales around the world that read units of grams, kg, or some other unit of mass while actually measuring the downward force applied by the mass.
Coordination is good and all, but there's nothing inherently superior about SI units over US customary units. And even if every measurement tool, design program, manufacturing machine and socket set in the US was converted to SI units, you'd still have to deal the conversion, and that conversion would still be susceptible to the sorts of errors you're whining about.
Moreover, it's not even as simple as a one-time conversion. There's also the hassle of filling your A/C with what used to be 10.0 lbs of coolant and is now 4.5359237 kg, or any of the other conversions you'd have to continue to do for decades to support existing devices and infastructure that weren't designed around the new system of units.
Just a note about Dice: The company in question was only able to collect information from Dice because you provided that information and marked it as searchable. There's no requirement that you have an account, or that it be active, searchable or non-confidential to use any of the job search or application functions on Dice (as opposed to Monster for example, which requires that you have an account and sign in to apply for jobs). If you just want to search for jobs without letting employeers search for you either don't create an account or mark your account inactive.
We all know that sitting in the same room as someone else doing exactly the same thing you are could never lead to a conversation, and that watching movies generally does. There's no reason to point out the obvious you nerd.
MacroVision is not an aspect of the player, it's an aspect of the media (though in digital media the signal is often inserted by the player, as it would not surive the encoding process). Studio-produced tapes may be MacroVision "protected", to prevent that particular piece of media from being cleanly copied (without a MacroVision supressor). Tapes that you record at home do not include the MacroVision signal, no matter how new your VCR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillismt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Pierre_Seura
So you mis-understand my post, quote a bit of my post out of context but in the same thread, tell me I'm wrong, and yet I'm an ass for pointing out that you didn't properly read the original post? I'll keep that in mind.
If you're going to do that you might as well hook up the Ethernet cable and have network access. It's still physically connecting to the printer -- not exactly a covert operation.
This whole discussion is about how corporations A) shouldn't have "rights" or B) shouldn't have the power of ownership. Several of the parent posts talk about basically disolving the entire concept of non-individual ownership in the context of corporations not deserving "rights" or privileges under the law.
Click "parent" a couple of times and take a look at the to which you first replied. I spoke of "some pretty convincing arguements for the existance of legal entities with the power to own things and execute contracts" in reply to a post that argued against the power of ownership for corportions with "Uh, they wouldn't own the copyrights because they wouldn't have any rights as an individual." I then provided an example of trying to do business without any sort of organizing legal entity, partnership or otherwise. You replied to that with "Wrong" and provided links to pages about partnerships, which as far as I can tell, are some sort of organizing legal entity.
Your points might be valid if someone was arguing about how an unlimited partnership is the only form of business organization, but we're not. If you're not going to read parent posts you probably shouldn't start your reply with "Wrong" -- it won't turn out well.
First, an almost trivial change supported by many if not most printers is to allow print jobs only from a certain host or set of hosts. HP's JetDirect cards can even read that list of hosts from a DHCP parameter, so you don't have to update all your printers if the queue changes.
Since this is only an IP-based security solution it can be overcome, but it's not as trivial as plugging your computer into the network and installing the print drivers, at least not if the network is reasonably secured in the first place.
If you've got your printers on a isolated Ethernet segment, and you should if you're trying to control access to them, traffic sent from a spoofed print-server address on the workstation network segment should never make it to the printer segment. Unless you've got unused, active ports on the printer segment, an attacker would likely have to physically disconnect something on the printer segment and attach a hub to send packets with an appropriate fake IP address. Again it could be done, but it's not trivial.
That's not to say anyone actually sets up their printers or networks this way, but it is a reasonably secure way to enforce use of the print queue.