A long time ago, although I don’t remember where, I read that the martini glass was invented during the American prohibition to get people to drink more quickly. Supposedly it opened up the rate of consumption so people could gulp and therefore reduce the risk of being caught with a drink in their hand.

The idea sounded strange (ever try to gulp out of a large martini glass?) and was stuck in my head until I read a recent study in ScienceMag that explained how it might actually work. The study describes an observed difference in drinking speeds with curved and straight glasses.

After watching video of both sessions and recording how much time it took for the drinkers to finish their beer or sodas, Attwood’s team found that one group consistently drank much faster than the others: The group drinking a full glass of lager out of curved flute glasses. In a paper published this month in PLoS ONE, the team reports that whereas the group with straight glasses nursed their 354 milliliters of lager for about 13 minutes, the group with the same amount of beer served in curved glasses finished in less than 8 minutes, drinking alcohol almost as quickly as the soda-drinkers guzzled their pop. However, the researchers observed no differences between people drinking 177 milliliters of beer out of straight versus fluted glasses.

Attwood believes that the reason for the increase in speed is that the halfway point in a curved glass is ambiguous. Social beer drinkers, she says, naturally tend to pace themselves when drinking alcohol, judging their speed by how fast they reach half-full. Another experiment in which participants were asked to judge different levels of fluid in photographs of straight and curved glasses showed that people consistently misjudge the volume in fluted glasses, Attwood says. A simple solution to this problem would be to mark beer glasses with the accurate halfway point, she says. “We can’t tell people not to drink, but we can give them a little more control.”

Straight glasses do not seem to include an angled glass like the martini shape. A better distinction might be between a vertically symmetrical glass where consumption has a constant rate versus shapes that make estimation difficult.

The old saying is that “information wants to be free.” In China this has proven to be helpful for citizen activists who use social networks to report and try to collaboratively solve mysteries in security.

First I noticed in What’s On in Ningbo (WON) the case of a corn cob thrown from a speeding police car.

The corn cob incident

一辆车从我们身边呼啸而过，车上飞下一只白色塑料袋，里面有一根啃完的玉米棒。正谴责，定睛一看，是辆警车，浙B牌照。我们的车速是每小时120公里，此车车速估计在140公里。

That basically says “a white bag with a corn cob was thrown out of a window while driving 90 mph. It was a police car with Zhejiang B (Ningbo) plates.” My favorite part of the story is a quantified risk analysis offered as perspective.

再看玉米棒可能造成的后果，一颗10克的枪弹发射出去后所产生的能量，跟从车速为每小时120公里的汽车上投出一个4千克西瓜所产生的能量不相上下

I’m not sure but I think that says “The danger from a corn cob at 80 mph is like a 0.4 oz bullet hitting a 9 lb watermelon.” The watermelon not only is a reference commonly used for impact calculations but also a very popular fruit in China.

Anyway, photos of the car with a description of the incident with details like “Hangzhou-Ningbo Expressway to the direction of Ningbo, Yuyao near the toll station” were posted to a Sina Weibo microblog site. Soon after the topic gained hundreds of comments and thousands of views, prompting the police to issue a statement.

6月6日下午，我局民警驾驶该警车从杭州押解六名违法嫌疑人返甬，途中一名嫌疑人随手将民警为其提供的已吃完的食品扔出窗外

That says on June 6th a police car was traveling with 6 suspects in their car (really, 6 suspects on the 6th day of the 6th month?). One of the suspects was said to have thrown a corn cob out the window without being detected.

The statement was obviously not satisfactory. It raised questions like 1) why can a detainee throw anything out a window 2) how did a corn cob get in the car 3) why are six detainees in one car 4) why are biodegradable corn cobs in a non biodegradable plastic bag…eh, nevermind the last question.

Eventually the police made more statements and copped to performing below expectations. They apologized for the incident and asked the public for continued supervision and support.

Second, I also noticed in Ningbo news a story about a mysterious gap in surveillance.

The disappearing passenger incident

Soon after a taxi stopped for two passengers the police were called in to investigate.

Twenty minutes into the drive, Hong, who had gotten into the back seat, had disappeared. The door was closed and no sound had been heard.

Having failed to locate Hong or connect with him via his phone, Liang and Peng called the police. The police found that the video on the car’s monitoring system was blank from 7:49 pm to 9:10 pm, spanning the time when Hong disappeared.

The story was posted to a Sina Weibo microblog site and speculatons reached into the thousands. Could it have been a wormhole? Was Hong a ghost? Did he throw himself out the window in a plastic bag?

Instead, it turned out to be a very simple problem.

On the night of August 4, the police declared that Hong did not in fact disappear. He was left on the curb when the taxi pulled away, with Liang and Peng assuming he was inside. Hong’s mobile phone happened to be broken that night.

To better understand the Chinese perspective on this story (and how it became so popular) you have to include some cultural elements. 1) It is common for taxi passengers to sit in the front seat and not look at the back seat 2) Chinese are not accustomed to voicemail and expect people to answer the phone immediately 3) Infrastructure tends to be trusted but not verified.