When they say 3D printed do they mean a metal mill

It almost always means an additive instead of a subtractive process. Milling cuts things away and is subtractive. 3D printing sticks things together so is additive.

or can we 3D print with any random material now

Yes so long as you keep in mind that 3D printing describes a wide range of methods instead of a single one. In this case it's sintering metal powder one layer at a time with a laser. While expensive it's got some things going for it:
It's easier to produce titanium as powder instead of large solid blocks.
It's expensive to machine titanium from those solid blocks.
Titanium is expensive in general so methods like this with very little waste have an immediate benefit.
Laser are very cheap these days, give very good tolerances and don't really use all that much power. After these parts are made they probably don't need any more finishing than a bit of sandblasting.

And if so, why not use the far more tried tested, and better alternative milling?

Because we already know methods like this have several advantages over milling, electrochemical machining, casting, hot isostatic pressing, macro scale welding etc. It's not for everything but this application seems to tick all the boxes where laser sintering makes more sense than anything else.

It's porous but that actually helps with incorporation into the body. I'm a bit out of touch now but in 1999 experiments with implanting porous titanium implants treated in caustic soda into mice resulted in very strong metal to bone connections after only a few weeks.
So while it's horrible strength compared with solid titanium outside the body it's very likely to be higher strength inside the body than a solid implant.
Besides, bone is not very strong in comparison to titanium - which actually has been a problem with metal joints for years since the metal grinds away at the bone it is inserted into. Typically that's why metal joints have been replaced - the metal bits are fine but the bone they are connected to has worn down and a longer joint is required.

You live in a country where a far too common morality (or amorality if you prefer) is that it is virtuous to make money by any means that is not illegal. That huge tangle of rules and "big government" that you rail at is the only thing that stands in the way of situations like the poisoned milk incident in China.
The price of the freedom to have such a morality is the state putting in rules to limit the damage.
It does suck in many ways but it's a trade off to avoid the full Oligarchy that would happen if the government (and the people who vote in this case) was too "small" to have much of a say about how society is run. A balance is hard to strike and the corrupt are pushing hard to remove as much balance as they can so they can profit to the injust disadvantage of others (eg. removing rules on water rights has resulted in farmers downstream with a dry river bed).

It seems some of the things you hate about the greens are really about hating the idea of democracy in general which is why I've been spending time replying to your posts despite not giving a shit about your local green party. Is that correct or have you just been making some sort of overblown comments for effect and do not really have such an extreme view?

How will it work? A national block on a huge set of p2p index sites? A national block on a huge set of download link index sites?

Of course not but it doesn't matter. They just want an excuse to put figarative heads on pikes of those caught to show that something is being done.

I'm saying your interpretation defies reality. "It's pretty clear, isn't it, that they are for more government - WAY more government". Just like Homeland Security is way less government? How many people does it really take to draw up a few rules for an industry? How does that expand to the "big brother" dystopia you are pretending they want?
Sadly that tells us more about yourself than anything else which makes the contribution to the discussion you made above almost entirely worthless IMHO.

I've seen that view expressed seriously in this place far more times than I wish to remember - typically followed by a discussion of what a "real" libertarian is.

Take the blinkers off and see what is actually happening. For instance compare how portions of the Army and Veteran's hospitals do things compared with private enterprise. If you really want to see "building a cadre of elitist bureaucrats" take a look at some hospitals in private enterprise and some "too big to fail" companies.
Trying to pretend bad management is inherent in either the public or private systems is somewhat simplistic, and to be frank, utterly stupid. You can get it anywhere if you have the wrong horse judges doing "a heck of a job". You tend to see it more in public institutions when they adopt the worst private methods of promotion (old roommate, cousin, guy in the tennis club, he/she looks cute) instead of procedural methods (evaluation to see if the person to be promoted has actually been doing a good job).

It all pales in comparison to Australia's Telstra. An utter fuckwit called Sol Trujillo came over here and decided to lower the level of customer service to the worst he'd seen in the USA.

Instead of inventing things these people will or won't do based on your personal gut feeling (since you are dismissing their declared platforms as inaccurate) why not take a look overseas to where people with that platform have been elected and see what they have actually done or not done?
Why stop there? Apply it to all parties - give up on the pre-conceptions and pay attention to what they actually DO after being elected. Consider how the Department of Homeland Security came to be an enormous thing under a "small government" party and then various contradictions under the current administration which is of course a different party - but perhaps not as different as they pretend.

Just as I laughed when you protested a downmod that happened because you called me a troll just for adding a new angle on a topic - it's all very silly really.
Thank you for the apology - quotes or not - I'll treat it as an honest one.

And how much time was lost from (1) employees needing to learn a new system, (2) reintegrating email onto a new client platform, and (3) finding a new way to conduct patching. (Microsoft, for all their deficiencies, is better than its competitors at keeping patches up-to-date. I'm looking at you, Apple.)

I'm not saying that the move may not be correct in terms of dollars and sense, but please answer these questions before blowing sunshine up my ass.

It should be very clear from portions of my post such as "To be frank, none of us here really know enough about the situation" that I was discussing things in general terms.
Did I need it to put in it red bold blinking script to avoid being used as your strawman?

me and dblll (whom i still suspect may have multiple accounts, regardless of UID)

With nasty shit like that you wonder why you get downmodded?
You owe me an apology.
Of course I do not think you have the integrity to do it.

Threatening to call the police for something so trivial lands it in the "but I only fucked one donkey" territory as a judgement call that is especially bad and gets noticed.
Your "one wrong judgment call" is enough for dismissal if the call is bad enough. Whether this case is bad enough or not is up to the person's employer whether either of us think that is a good idea or not. To be frank, none of us here really know enough about the situation to know whether the person involved should lose their job or not, all we know is it would be better for everyone if the same situation was not repeated. If a person is so far out of their depth that they wish to escalate to law enforcement over a triviality that's probably more a failure of allocation of responsibility than the person out of their depth. Why wasn't it escalated to a manager that would know that calling the police is not only a very stupid idea in that situation but also very threatening?

Just add this to the end of a very long list of why it sucks to fly in the USA at the moment.

Sadly if the police were called they may have actually tried to find something to charge somebody with to avoid it being booked as a total waste of time, and that somebody is far more likely to be the passenger than the airline employee due to less likely consequences on the police involved.