Well, there's two reasons why 3D printing makes sense. One is prototyping. You might need to make a half dozen different prototypes that are pretty similar to each other before you find one that really works. The second is replacement. You may need to replace these things on a regular basis. Replacing them is just a matter of sending a file to a printer -- no craft skill needed at all.

Hand crafting something like this falls within the scope of my tinkering abilities. I've worked with fiberglass and epoxy and wood. But it's not for everyone and if someone had to *pay* me to make something like this it would probably cost a thousand dollars a pair.

Something like this would seem to fall into the sweet spot for 3D printing: something you need more than one of, but not *thousands* of identical copies.

That was a dozen years ago. He can't self-publish *now* because he has a contract with Springer.

I have a friend who was a medical entomologist and journal editor before he retired. I ran into him while I was browsing a book table at a conference, and mentioned that I'd like to buy one of the medical entomology textbooks but the $250 price tag was a bit steep.

"Just wait," he said. "I'm about to change that. I'm writing a new textbook that will be a lot cheaper. I want students and public health departments to be able to afford a solid medical entomology reference."

When his book came out the publisher set the priced at $500. It was twice as expensive any of its competitors. Now something like this is never going to sell like a basic calculus book, but it has a considerably larger market than you'd think. His idea was that it would find its way into the syllabus in medical, veterinary and public health schools; and that hospitals and public health agencies would buy copies for their libraries. But his strategy to make that happen by making the book affordable and sell in (relatively) high numbers; the publisher had other plans.

So don't blame authors for high textbook prices. It's publishers who set the price.

Continued here, here, and here.

Yes, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, and publish your method and findings in a reputable journal. That's how science works. Cherry-picking some numbers or misunderstanding findings do not constitute research, no matter how easy it is.

Global cooling: A fringe belief in the 1970s, and never the prevalent theory (but oft reported as such in media which seeks to lampoon actual scientific discovery)
Global warming: The increased heat in the Earth's system (in the atmosphere, seas, etc.)
Climate change: Changes to the climate, which might result from cooling or warming
Climate disruption: The specific changes to the world's climate which cause disruption to the existing industries and societies

You playfully confusing these terms only shows your ignorance, and does not cast dispersion on the people who use them, or on the phenomena they describe.

They're not comparable, as one side is accepting the scientific method, and the other side is ignoring it. You calling those who believe the results of the scientific method (which gave you the computer you're looking at now) a church only shows your bias, and doesn't reflect poorly on them.

English is a descriptive language, not prescriptive, so if a word or suffix is used in a particular fashion by enough people, that becomes the meaning. You should probably get over that, as otherwise you'll have a very annoyed life. Language evolves, as do the meanings of the words we use.

Further reading

The science is on the side of AGW. That's it. Challenge all you want, but when you start ignoring study after study and claim they're all wrong or in some sort of conspiracy, you are not engaging in science or skepticism but block-headed cynicism.

Precisely - question the science and listen to the answers given. That's where this 'denialism' ceases to be skepticism and becomes cynicism - if one asks a question in order to learn, then that is skepticism. To ask the question and then ignore the demonstrated answer, or claim it's nonsense (without evidence), is not skepticism, even if it uses the same words and starts off looking identical.

That is a massive amount of guesswork that any rational person would feel ashamed to vomit on the internet. If you can back it up with sources, that would be something different. The sheer number of generalisations you've made, seemingly based solely on the idea of sexism, is incredibly telling.

By "white knight" you seem to be meaning "non-sexist". It's weird you'd think that would be something to be ashamed of, but in light of your eagerness to throw around allegations of sexism and self-proclaimed omniscience of the business world, one could not really expect you to behave like a rational person.

Or we could just stick with the science, which has roundly demonstrated climate change, and pinned the cause on AGW. If people want to dissent and be taken seriously, they should publish papers in respected journals, as we as a society demand our scientists do. Giving equal time to people who are just spouting off nonsensical gut-feeling arguments or who are woefully ignorant of the data and the implications drawn therefrom, is only going to hurt us all.

Trapped in a walled garden, are we?

You are the one apparently peddling nonsense. If you don't like the scientific method, stop using your computer now. You using it is hypocritical, if you are going to turn around and say the very method itself is intrinsically flawed. Either your computer works and there is indeed anthropogenic global warming, or your computer doesn't work and there isn't. You can't really have both.

epyT-R, I also seem to remember you making many utterly misogynistic posts in the past, such as "women shouldn't/can't be scientists" and so on, so it's not really surprising that you'd be complaining about people calling other people out for being narrow-minded and intellectually lazy. When you're being socially unjust, I guess people looking for social justice are your enemy, hence your tirades against them.