You need to ask yourself a very simple question. Do I want to lift weights for 10 to 20 minutes a week (the actual exertion time) and be able to eat 2500+ calories and still lose weight, or do I want to starve myself to lose weight. For me, I'd be willing to lift 7 days a week and 10 minutes a day if I could eat what I want, but it turns out you only need to lift 4 days a week and 5 to 10 min a day to eat what you want. Now when I say "lift", I don't mean doing as many of the ladies do with those 2 pound dumb bells. Be prepared to haul some serious manly weight and break a sweat. Squats are the biggest killers that work the largest muscle group in your body and you should never skip leg and glut workouts.
Now it's possible to do the lifting at home, but I've found that it's too easy to slack off and avoid doing it. The act of driving to the gym and changing your cloths is a huge factor. By the time you've done all of that, you tell yourself that you might as well work up a sweat because you don't want all that work going to waste.
I did dieting once and it worked, but I was suffering all day long feeling hungry and fighting my urge to eat. It was suffering every waking minute 16 hours a day. Doing just a little bit of muscle building is very little suffering compared to starving yourself, and a little muscle development looks good on a man. Also, don't even worry about your weight. Muscles are heavy but they're very compact per pound. What is important is how thin you look and not how much you weigh.
If you can't run, maybe try the elliptical or cycling machine for cardio. Again, it's not that important for weight loss since 10 minutes is only good for 100 calorie burn, but it is good for your lungs and heart. What makes the difference is the weight lifting and the muscle mass to jack up your base metabolic rate to several hundred or even 1000 calories higher than it is now. Once you jack up that metabolic rate, you can keep eating whatever you want and still lose weight.
I used the laziest way to get back in shape without dieting. I packed on 10 lbs of muscle in addition to dancing 3 days a week. I was a professional ballet dancer until 2000. I was already dancing that much before adopting the weight lifting program, but I still weighed 195 and wasn't dropping weight. My professional dancing weight was 155 in 2000.
I had refused to lift since the early 1990s because I didn't want too much bulk, but I wasn't losing weight. I knew that the secret weight loss without giving up food (not even junk food) was a higher metabolic rate, and the secret to a higher metabolic rate is muscle mass. A guy who is really muscular or athletic (think Michael Phelps who on some days eats 10000 calories) needs to eat 3500 to 4000 calories just to keep from losing weight. I didn't need to go that far and just 10 lbs of solid muscle boosted my daily caloric requirements to 2500 to 3000 calories. I actually started eating more after adopting a fitness program because I was more hungry, but I still ate less than 3000 calories. The result was that I initially gained 5 lbs but started dropping a consistent 2 lb average a month. Just over a year, I've dropped 22 lbs off the peak of 200 lbs down to 178 lbs. My pant waist size dropped from 34" to 30" and I'm probably around mid to high teens in body fat percentage. I'm still dropping a pound a month now so I'm hoping to get down to 160.
I played football in High School so I was familiar with the basics of weight lifting. All I did to put on 5-10 lbs of muscle was do some basics. That would be bench press, military press, pull-ups, and squats. If you have knee problems, make sure you warm it up and wear the right supports, and probably stick with lower weight, higher repetition, and don't go as deep. Machine lifts aren't nearly as good as free weights.
I broke that down to 4 days and each day I'd do 5 sets of 10 repetitions. Now it's important that you're lifting sufficient weight were you absolutely can't do another one by the 10th rep. You do this for about a month and you'll notice immediate results. You'll initially gain some weight but that's muscle, but you'll immediately notice your pants getting looser around the waste. There are other lifts you can do to work the finer muscles if you get serious about lifting, but the basics are what's important. The basics should take no more than 30 minute per session where you're lifting for 30 seconds and resting 4.5 minutes between lifts.
Note that I didn't do cardio for the first year, though I've adopted an 8-minute run on the 4 days I go to the gym on the treadmill to improve my cardiovascular fitness. That's really not that much and most people at the gym do more than that because they're not as lazy as I am, but 8 to 10 minutes produces some good results so that I'm not winded in any of my other activities. Personally, I think moderation is better for most people because it's easy to stick with. When you do something too strenuous, there's the risk of you giving up the program. Moderation produces some really good results.
So in summary, do 4 30-minute weight training sessions a week, 8+ minute runs, and some other activity you love that isn't as strenuous but spend at least an hour a day and 4 days a week on it. Note that the weight training is the most important aspect of losing fat if you hate doing hours of cardio a day and you hate dieting.
UFC legend Randy Couture is 47 and still beating up other elite athletes. I'm 38 and I spent the last year getting back in shape. I allowed myself to get out of shape over the years and now I'm back to a 30" waste with a six pack after a modest exercise program.
For a guy who doesn't work out, Greger doesn't look half bad. What that means is that if you put him on a conditioning program, he would have a good athletic body in a year. I'd be interested in seeing how well this guy does after he addresses his physical inadequacies.
People (especially here in California) love to use energy, but they do everything they can to oppose new power generation plants or power transmission infrastructure.
Consoles jump several generations at a time and they generally like to keep the platform for as long as possible on the order of 5-8 years. When they do jump, they jump one generation ahead of PCs at a tremendous loss in money for every unit sold. One to two years later, the PC catches up but it keeps jumping generations every one to two years an it inevitably jumps ahead of the console. But when the next console upgrade happens, it will jump ahead again.
When Tiequan "The Wolf" Zhang made the debut for the WEC (soon to be UFC) 145 division as the first Chinese citizen to fight in the top US MMA league, he had to come to the high altitude of Denver Colorado. They asked him how he was dealing with the altitude and his response was that it wasn't a problem because the air was so clean.
I realize that the artists and the venue want to offer reasonably priced tickets to consumers directly at below market price, but there will always be a-holes that will buy up all those tickets and then sell them to the market-driven price. The problem here is that it's fundamentally impossible to sell something below market price because someone will buy it up and resell it at market price unless you have very tight entry controls. For example, they might try to sell these tickets like airline tickets and make them non-transferable. That means every ticket purchased will only be valid for someone if their ID (with some strong crypto signatures) matches the credit card used to buy the ticket. Of course this is quite difficult to pull off. Short of that type of gate authorization system tied to the purchaser, they should just offer it up to the highest bidder. That way the bidder can at least be sure that they're getting real tickets and not some fake copy of a first-row seat. Believe it or not, there are plenty of scalpers who make a living selling fake tickets.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/a-secure-wireless-lan-hotspot-for-anonymous-users/587
It doesn't even need a password. It could be a blank username and blank password or any username/password combo for that matter. The point is that it will facilitate wire equivalent security on Wi-Fi networks. Of course we'll have to combat gratuitous ARP to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on the "wire equivalent".
Thanks. I think a camera system will still catch the visitors to the city who don't know about the cameras. The problem is that the city can't just rely on that revenue and they need people to take risks. Cameras for stop lights is the right mechanism because we actually want people to stop running red lights. But cities want people to park at a red meter because it's revenue with no safety downside.
Parking tickets are like Vegas Casinos. If they make the table odds too high, then they lose a lot of customers. Installing cameras will just mean that people won't be willing to take risks any more since there's a certainty that they will be caught. Cities catch people because people can actually get away with a lot of red meters, but they end up getting caught more in the long run.
Unless you can prove there is too much market power in content delivery (and the evidence suggests otherwise), you can't justify regulation on the basis of speculation. Furthermore, the FCC doesn't really have the power to do this because congress never authorized them to do so and the vast majority of congress opposes FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules. I mean you have 74 Democrats in Congress plus virtually all of the Republicans opposing this.
"My personal take on Net Neutrality is that ISPs should treat all packets equally. I do not like the idea of being forced to host all my videos on YouTube or another huge site that can afford to make special deals with broadband providers such as Brighthouse, my local cable TV monopoly, instead of on my friend Joe's Globaltap hosting service."
Ugh. Nobody "forces" Mr. Miller to host anywhere. He's more than welcome to host his videos at his friend's Joe's Globaltap hosting service, but is he expecting his friend to do this for free or give him some flat rate $5/month service? Does Mr. Miller expect his friend Joe to eat the Internet transit costs of $3 to $10 per Mbps per month which might be thousands of dollars a month for popular content while he free loads off of his friend's hosting service? Is he under the dilusion that all Internet websites operate at the same speed (http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/call-the-net-neutrality-police-dailykos-loads-faster-than-foxnews/)?
The reality is that only the largest websites like YouTube can afford server transit bandwidth on the Internet and there has always been a toll to deliver content on the Internet. YouTube gives you this bandwidth for free because they value your presence and your content which attracts eyeballs and advertisers. Google loses money but they're making a huge investment gamble on the future.
Why is it that people lose all reason and sanity when it comes to the commercial Internet which is made up of all private networks and private investment? We can all oppose bad behavior like censorship of content or the blocking of legal applications on bandwidth people paid for, but Net Neutrality insists on going further to outlaw legal and voluntary premium content delivery services.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/youtube-adds-4k-video-capability-but-how-improving-1080p-first/ Google just announced that YouTube will now support “original” resolutions of up to “4096P”, but it’s actually a maximum of 3072P narrowscreen or 2304P widescreen. This announcement makes it sound as if our computers and broadband connection lags Google YouTube when YouTube is actually the weakest link. YouTube’s biggest problem is their over compressed “HD” video that looks nothing like HD video.
Soneira makes no sense in claiming that a display looks worse as you move it away from the eyes. In fact, Apple overshot the PPI and not under.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/06/do-you-really-need-300-ppi-on-a-3-5-inch-phone
“So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch,” Soneira added. “At 8 inches it’s 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi.”
These comments makes absolutely no sense. If he wasn’t misquoted (and I have to give Mark Hachman of PC Magazine the benefit of the doubt that Soneira was quoted correctly), then Soneira’s statement is completely opposite of what is true. PPI or Pixels Per Inch stays the same regardless of distance held to the eyes but what does change is that angular resolution increases as you move the display away from the eyes so you don’t need as much PPI for a larger and more distant display. This is why a 42 1080P HDTV only has 52 PPI and you can’t see any pixels on it because you’re sitting so far away. Soneira is suggesting that the iPhone 4 looks worse and worse as you move it further away which is a baffling. The correct conclusion is that the iPhone 4 overshot the PPI and not undershot.
I said not more than 60 hours; I didn't suggest that should be normal operation. We do have 40 hour work weeks as the standard in the US. These pro gamers seem to be pulling 100 hours a week.
Professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, singers, dancers, MMA fighters, boxers, etc all live in their own homes. They can have families if they like and they usually do. What these S. Korean pro-gamers are doing should be against the labor laws of any civilized nation. They shouldn't be doing this for more than 10 hours a day 6 days a week.
They're not incapable of it, they're just lazy. When I worked a low wage job in college, I struggled hard to save enough money to buy a computer. Even in the late 90s, I had to spend more than $800 for an HP laser 2100. Now you can buy a color laser for $100. It's not good for photos, but printing your own photos produce inferior quality at a higher cost. It's easier to go to the store with a flash card and do 1-hour printing.
Kodak has been producing printers with very low margin on the consumables, but consumers are attracted to the artificially low printer prices from the other companies. So while HP is full of it when they claim that ink is fundamentally expensive, consumers share a lot of the blame when they overwhelmingly vote with their wallet to pay less up front and a lot more later. It's just like how consumers share a lot of the blame when they consistently choose glossy displays on notebooks which are absolute garbage when it comes to its usefulness.
So you think the reaction torque is different than the working torque? Do you even understand the definition of torque? Torque is the effective radius multiplied by the force. Your reaction shaft might be geared lower so that it doesn't require as much force to push, but its the lower gear has a smaller effective radius. These two things negate each other and you still end up with the same torque. The only difference is the speed of your output. A higher output RPM is balanced by the reduced force which results in the same torque.
Let me add that it would be possible to use less energy to drive the bottom shaft if it were geared very low. The problem with this is that it would also mean minimal changes to the gear ratio because the degree with which the bottom shaft changes is very little compared to the top shaft. But the degree of gear change would not be very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to ask yourself a very simple question. Do I want to lift weights for 10 to 20 minutes a week (the actual exertion time) and be able to eat 2500+ calories and still lose weight, or do I want to starve myself to lose weight. For me, I'd be willing to lift 7 days a week and 10 minutes a day if I could eat what I want, but it turns out you only need to lift 4 days a week and 5 to 10 min a day to eat what you want. Now when I say "lift", I don't mean doing as many of the ladies do with those 2 pound dumb bells. Be prepared to haul some serious manly weight and break a sweat. Squats are the biggest killers that work the largest muscle group in your body and you should never skip leg and glut workouts.
Now it's possible to do the lifting at home, but I've found that it's too easy to slack off and avoid doing it. The act of driving to the gym and changing your cloths is a huge factor. By the time you've done all of that, you tell yourself that you might as well work up a sweat because you don't want all that work going to waste.
I did dieting once and it worked, but I was suffering all day long feeling hungry and fighting my urge to eat. It was suffering every waking minute 16 hours a day. Doing just a little bit of muscle building is very little suffering compared to starving yourself, and a little muscle development looks good on a man. Also, don't even worry about your weight. Muscles are heavy but they're very compact per pound. What is important is how thin you look and not how much you weigh.
If you can't run, maybe try the elliptical or cycling machine for cardio. Again, it's not that important for weight loss since 10 minutes is only good for 100 calorie burn, but it is good for your lungs and heart. What makes the difference is the weight lifting and the muscle mass to jack up your base metabolic rate to several hundred or even 1000 calories higher than it is now. Once you jack up that metabolic rate, you can keep eating whatever you want and still lose weight.
I used the laziest way to get back in shape without dieting. I packed on 10 lbs of muscle in addition to dancing 3 days a week. I was a professional ballet dancer until 2000. I was already dancing that much before adopting the weight lifting program, but I still weighed 195 and wasn't dropping weight. My professional dancing weight was 155 in 2000.
I had refused to lift since the early 1990s because I didn't want too much bulk, but I wasn't losing weight. I knew that the secret weight loss without giving up food (not even junk food) was a higher metabolic rate, and the secret to a higher metabolic rate is muscle mass. A guy who is really muscular or athletic (think Michael Phelps who on some days eats 10000 calories) needs to eat 3500 to 4000 calories just to keep from losing weight. I didn't need to go that far and just 10 lbs of solid muscle boosted my daily caloric requirements to 2500 to 3000 calories. I actually started eating more after adopting a fitness program because I was more hungry, but I still ate less than 3000 calories. The result was that I initially gained 5 lbs but started dropping a consistent 2 lb average a month. Just over a year, I've dropped 22 lbs off the peak of 200 lbs down to 178 lbs. My pant waist size dropped from 34" to 30" and I'm probably around mid to high teens in body fat percentage. I'm still dropping a pound a month now so I'm hoping to get down to 160.
I played football in High School so I was familiar with the basics of weight lifting. All I did to put on 5-10 lbs of muscle was do some basics. That would be bench press, military press, pull-ups, and squats. If you have knee problems, make sure you warm it up and wear the right supports, and probably stick with lower weight, higher repetition, and don't go as deep. Machine lifts aren't nearly as good as free weights.
I broke that down to 4 days and each day I'd do 5 sets of 10 repetitions. Now it's important that you're lifting sufficient weight were you absolutely can't do another one by the 10th rep. You do this for about a month and you'll notice immediate results. You'll initially gain some weight but that's muscle, but you'll immediately notice your pants getting looser around the waste. There are other lifts you can do to work the finer muscles if you get serious about lifting, but the basics are what's important. The basics should take no more than 30 minute per session where you're lifting for 30 seconds and resting 4.5 minutes between lifts.
Note that I didn't do cardio for the first year, though I've adopted an 8-minute run on the 4 days I go to the gym on the treadmill to improve my cardiovascular fitness. That's really not that much and most people at the gym do more than that because they're not as lazy as I am, but 8 to 10 minutes produces some good results so that I'm not winded in any of my other activities. Personally, I think moderation is better for most people because it's easy to stick with. When you do something too strenuous, there's the risk of you giving up the program. Moderation produces some really good results.
So in summary, do 4 30-minute weight training sessions a week, 8+ minute runs, and some other activity you love that isn't as strenuous but spend at least an hour a day and 4 days a week on it. Note that the weight training is the most important aspect of losing fat if you hate doing hours of cardio a day and you hate dieting.
UFC legend Randy Couture is 47 and still beating up other elite athletes. I'm 38 and I spent the last year getting back in shape. I allowed myself to get out of shape over the years and now I'm back to a 30" waste with a six pack after a modest exercise program.
For a guy who doesn't work out, Greger doesn't look half bad. What that means is that if you put him on a conditioning program, he would have a good athletic body in a year. I'd be interested in seeing how well this guy does after he addresses his physical inadequacies.
People (especially here in California) love to use energy, but they do everything they can to oppose new power generation plants or power transmission infrastructure.
Consoles jump several generations at a time and they generally like to keep the platform for as long as possible on the order of 5-8 years. When they do jump, they jump one generation ahead of PCs at a tremendous loss in money for every unit sold. One to two years later, the PC catches up but it keeps jumping generations every one to two years an it inevitably jumps ahead of the console. But when the next console upgrade happens, it will jump ahead again.
When Tiequan "The Wolf" Zhang made the debut for the WEC (soon to be UFC) 145 division as the first Chinese citizen to fight in the top US MMA league, he had to come to the high altitude of Denver Colorado. They asked him how he was dealing with the altitude and his response was that it wasn't a problem because the air was so clean.
I realize that the artists and the venue want to offer reasonably priced tickets to consumers directly at below market price, but there will always be a-holes that will buy up all those tickets and then sell them to the market-driven price. The problem here is that it's fundamentally impossible to sell something below market price because someone will buy it up and resell it at market price unless you have very tight entry controls. For example, they might try to sell these tickets like airline tickets and make them non-transferable. That means every ticket purchased will only be valid for someone if their ID (with some strong crypto signatures) matches the credit card used to buy the ticket. Of course this is quite difficult to pull off. Short of that type of gate authorization system tied to the purchaser, they should just offer it up to the highest bidder. That way the bidder can at least be sure that they're getting real tickets and not some fake copy of a first-row seat. Believe it or not, there are plenty of scalpers who make a living selling fake tickets.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/a-secure-wireless-lan-hotspot-for-anonymous-users/587
It doesn't even need a password. It could be a blank username and blank password or any username/password combo for that matter. The point is that it will facilitate wire equivalent security on Wi-Fi networks. Of course we'll have to combat gratuitous ARP to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on the "wire equivalent".
Forced SSL doesn't even work for Google, Twitter, and Facebook and probably most other sites even if they support SSL. That's because the javascript on those pages will opt to transmit authentication cookies in the clear. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/10/even-forced-ssl-is-broken-for-facebook-google-twitter/
Thanks. I think a camera system will still catch the visitors to the city who don't know about the cameras. The problem is that the city can't just rely on that revenue and they need people to take risks. Cameras for stop lights is the right mechanism because we actually want people to stop running red lights. But cities want people to park at a red meter because it's revenue with no safety downside.
Parking tickets are like Vegas Casinos. If they make the table odds too high, then they lose a lot of customers. Installing cameras will just mean that people won't be willing to take risks any more since there's a certainty that they will be caught. Cities catch people because people can actually get away with a lot of red meters, but they end up getting caught more in the long run.
Microsoft isn't a nobody and they enabled autopwn, I mean autorun by default.
Unless you can prove there is too much market power in content delivery (and the evidence suggests otherwise), you can't justify regulation on the basis of speculation. Furthermore, the FCC doesn't really have the power to do this because congress never authorized them to do so and the vast majority of congress opposes FCC's proposed Net Neutrality rules. I mean you have 74 Democrats in Congress plus virtually all of the Republicans opposing this.
"My personal take on Net Neutrality is that ISPs should treat all packets equally. I do not like the idea of being forced to host all my videos on YouTube or another huge site that can afford to make special deals with broadband providers such as Brighthouse, my local cable TV monopoly, instead of on my friend Joe's Globaltap hosting service."
Ugh. Nobody "forces" Mr. Miller to host anywhere. He's more than welcome to host his videos at his friend's Joe's Globaltap hosting service, but is he expecting his friend to do this for free or give him some flat rate $5/month service? Does Mr. Miller expect his friend Joe to eat the Internet transit costs of $3 to $10 per Mbps per month which might be thousands of dollars a month for popular content while he free loads off of his friend's hosting service? Is he under the dilusion that all Internet websites operate at the same speed (http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/call-the-net-neutrality-police-dailykos-loads-faster-than-foxnews/)?
The reality is that only the largest websites like YouTube can afford server transit bandwidth on the Internet and there has always been a toll to deliver content on the Internet. YouTube gives you this bandwidth for free because they value your presence and your content which attracts eyeballs and advertisers. Google loses money but they're making a huge investment gamble on the future.
Why is it that people lose all reason and sanity when it comes to the commercial Internet which is made up of all private networks and private investment? We can all oppose bad behavior like censorship of content or the blocking of legal applications on bandwidth people paid for, but Net Neutrality insists on going further to outlaw legal and voluntary premium content delivery services.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/youtube-adds-4k-video-capability-but-how-improving-1080p-first/
Google just announced that YouTube will now support “original” resolutions of up to “4096P”, but it’s actually a maximum of 3072P narrowscreen or 2304P widescreen. This announcement makes it sound as if our computers and broadband connection lags Google YouTube when YouTube is actually the weakest link. YouTube’s biggest problem is their over compressed “HD” video that looks nothing like HD video.
Having been born in Communist China, I think you should try living in Cuba for a while if you think it's all the same.
Americans and Europeans should compare Foxconn to US and EU labor conditions in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Soneira makes no sense in claiming that a display looks worse as you move it away from the eyes. In fact, Apple overshot the PPI and not under.
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/06/do-you-really-need-300-ppi-on-a-3-5-inch-phone
“So, if you hold an iPhone at the typical 12 inches from your eyes that works out to 477 pixels per inch,” Soneira added. “At 8 inches it’s 716 ppi. You have to hold it out 18 inches before it falls to 318 ppi.”
These comments makes absolutely no sense. If he wasn’t misquoted (and I have to give Mark Hachman of PC Magazine the benefit of the doubt that Soneira was quoted correctly), then Soneira’s statement is completely opposite of what is true. PPI or Pixels Per Inch stays the same regardless of distance held to the eyes but what does change is that angular resolution increases as you move the display away from the eyes so you don’t need as much PPI for a larger and more distant display. This is why a 42 1080P HDTV only has 52 PPI and you can’t see any pixels on it because you’re sitting so far away. Soneira is suggesting that the iPhone 4 looks worse and worse as you move it further away which is a baffling. The correct conclusion is that the iPhone 4 overshot the PPI and not undershot.
I said not more than 60 hours; I didn't suggest that should be normal operation. We do have 40 hour work weeks as the standard in the US. These pro gamers seem to be pulling 100 hours a week.
Professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, singers, dancers, MMA fighters, boxers, etc all live in their own homes. They can have families if they like and they usually do. What these S. Korean pro-gamers are doing should be against the labor laws of any civilized nation. They shouldn't be doing this for more than 10 hours a day 6 days a week.
They're not incapable of it, they're just lazy. When I worked a low wage job in college, I struggled hard to save enough money to buy a computer. Even in the late 90s, I had to spend more than $800 for an HP laser 2100. Now you can buy a color laser for $100. It's not good for photos, but printing your own photos produce inferior quality at a higher cost. It's easier to go to the store with a flash card and do 1-hour printing.
Kodak has been producing printers with very low margin on the consumables, but consumers are attracted to the artificially low printer prices from the other companies. So while HP is full of it when they claim that ink is fundamentally expensive, consumers share a lot of the blame when they overwhelmingly vote with their wallet to pay less up front and a lot more later. It's just like how consumers share a lot of the blame when they consistently choose glossy displays on notebooks which are absolute garbage when it comes to its usefulness.
So you think the reaction torque is different than the working torque? Do you even understand the definition of torque? Torque is the effective radius multiplied by the force. Your reaction shaft might be geared lower so that it doesn't require as much force to push, but its the lower gear has a smaller effective radius. These two things negate each other and you still end up with the same torque. The only difference is the speed of your output. A higher output RPM is balanced by the reduced force which results in the same torque.
Let me add that it would be possible to use less energy to drive the bottom shaft if it were geared very low. The problem with this is that it would also mean minimal changes to the gear ratio because the degree with which the bottom shaft changes is very little compared to the top shaft. But the degree of gear change would not be very useful.