BS: UK, EU, Metric

Subject: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:08 PM

I don't think this has been noted yet on the 'Cat. Apologies if it has.

But it sounds like good news to me. Maybe the EU finally realized their campaign was a loser.

AP 12 Sept 2007: "EU Gives UK a Break on the Pint"

"The European Commission has ditched its attempt to impose the metric system on Ireland and Britain, where a grocer was once convicted of selling bananas by the pound rather than by the kilo".

"European Union rules drafted in 1999 aimed to phase out imperial measures such as miles and pints by 2009, but the EU's executive body decided on a U-turn Tuesday in the face of public opposition."

"The decision 'honors the culture and traditions of Great Britain and Ireland which are important to the European Commission' said Guenter Verheugen, the EU's industry policy commissioner."

Any more details?

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: redsnapper
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:13 PM

The campaign has clearly been a loser for some time.

But why is the metric system so hated in the UK and the USA? (Ireland is metric) To me the metric system (more properly the SI system) is infinitely more logical. But then I'm a scientist and used to working in it.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:22 PM

Logic has nothing to do with the choice. Culture and tradition are only part of it.
I spent my working days as a research scientist, hence made many calculations in the metric system, but on a personal level, the pound-oz-teaspoon, mile-inch etc., are locked in.
I can estimate a hundred yards to a mile visually and be reasonably accurate, but trying to visualize a kilometer or 50 meters is a problem, my estimate would be far off.
A pint I know, but a liter is too much!
I have a good collection of cookbooks, mostly American, with measurements based on pound-ounces and cup-teaspoon. I can visualize these amounts, but not the metric equivalents.

When I go to the grocery, I ask for pounds or ounces, but a deli I use posts prices/100 grams. I end up with too much or too little if I order that way- the scales used read in both metric and 'English' so I order by quarter-pound, etc. and get the amount I want.

Most of the people I know make their estimates the way I do; forcing metric on us brings out our obstinate resistance to furrin ways. When we cross into the States (from Canada), we can relax and ignore metric.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:08 AM

I think it's a misnomer to describe this as "a campaign" - it was a bit of bureaucratic nonsense working itself out through josbworths.

Anyway, this is a welcome development. No reason we should use the same measurements in our daily life as we do in scientific measurements.

And there's nothing more logical about metric measures. They are more convenient for certain purposes - but they are less so for others. My thumb gives me a rough and ready measurement of an inch, my foot gives me a foot, and when I pace things out I know what a yard is. And I know what a mile feels like in a way I don't know what a kilometre feels like.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:19 AM

The metric system works well as a quantative method due to it being in base 10, and easy to use on an electronic calculator. Metrification has made my working life easier, but out in the real world I know I am six foot tall and weigh thirteen stone. I haven't a clue what that would be in metric. A victory for common sense!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: vectis
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:04 AM

The U turn makes sense. You can pace out a distance in yards because it is based on body mearurements but the metre is just that bit too long to pace out.
My Dutch friends have never learned Imperial but tend to use them in the privacy of their own homes because you don't need to find a tape but can easily estimate using rule of thumb (groan) measures.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: GUEST,clockwatcher
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:13 AM

The yard was supposed to be the distance from the end of Henry 8th's nose to the end of his thumb.

The metre I believe is a 40-millionth of the circumference of the earth.

I'm with Harry on this.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:56 AM

When you grow up metric (cgs) you quickly develop a feeling for the units in that system. A cm is the width of my nail on the smallest finger, 10 cm is the length of longest finger etc. I can use my body easily for everything I need in my daily life, I even know what 1 degree visual angle is using my body.

Metrification (unification) was a necessity in Germany some 150 years ago. Of course we also had old measures like foot, Elle etc. But in each German statelet these measures were slightly different. That was never a problem for the local users, it was a serious problem for long distance communication, science and trade.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Stu
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:03 AM

"The yard was supposed to be the distance from the end of Henry 8th's nose to the end of his thumb."

I suppose that depends on what his fingers where up to missus.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:58 AM

It's all Napoleon's fault and we fought hard enough to stop him landing in Britain 200 years ago!

I'm a product of the 'dual' system. I learned Imperial measurements at home but metric at school, not long after our coinage turned decimal. Consequently, I'm familiar with both, but more happy with Imperial. Kilometres are an unknown quantity to me. Most of my recipe books are in metric but the ones I use most often are in Imperial. I still ask for fabric in yards out of habit.

Had we stopped using Imperial straight away, as we did old style coinage, we might all be metric now, but it took 20 years for anyone to get serious about it, and now a further 10 of legislation for it to be common practice. At least with pints it isn't so hard to get the figures wrong - last week in the newspaper, Woolworths were advertising their champagne at £5.00 per 750cl... better value than the 75cl bottles more readily available!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:25 PM

I'll take a tenners worth!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:28 PM

We went metric here in Oz about 40 years ago. Love it. Remember multiplying 3 pounds 7 shillings and fourpence ha'penny by 13 pounds 3 shillings and fivepence ha'penny ? Give me a break. Who needs that ? Ditto for length with yards, feet, inches & fractions of an inch.
I'm in industrial instruments now and we still have a few Luddites who ask for gauges with PSI ( pounds per square inch ) ranges. When I say gauges now have metric dials ( kiloPascal is the standard in Oz ) they generally reply that they "don't understand those kPa thingies" to which I reply " oh, so you pay for your beer in Pounds, Shillings & Pence do you ?" Some still insist on PSI units but they realise they're in the wrong century when I inform them that Neanderthals are good money spinners for us as we charge an extra $50 per gauge for PSI scales.

JG / FME

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:10 PM

"multiplying 3 pounds 7 shillings and fourpence ha'penny by 13 pounds 3 shillings and fivepence ha'penny "

I can't imagine any circumstances where anybody would want to do that, and what the answer could possibly represent.

But when it comes to real calculations, the kind you might wan to do when adding up the cost of purchases a shop, £sd can actually be much easier to use, when you've grown up with it. It's a different way of thinking, but it works fine. That's assuming you are doing it in your head rather than writing it down or using a machine.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Rowan
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

I suppose it depends, McGrath, on what you regard as "real calculations". There was a time when I was required to deal with rods, poles and perches; groan! And then there was the business about calculating how many horses an electric motor was equivalent to, and whether the wiring and fuses would cope; more groan! And when it came to working out how to build a house that was energy efficient in a challenging climate? Triple groans!

Thank goodness I don't have to keep a shelf full of Ready Reckoners in my library or too many conversion factors in my head (although I can do a quick ready conversion between a few systems, in my head, still, and I happily converse with Americans to help them understand some of life's SI mysteries. Although they still insist that "metre" and "litrer" are, to quote Micro$ot's dictionary 'The English way of spelling "meter" and "liter", respectively'. I note that American surveyors have now standardised their units so that their versions of "Imperial Measures" (I've always wondered how Americans can bring themselves to use "Imperial" measurements) are all now exact multiples of the relevant SI metrications.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:29 PM

I remember my grandfather teaching me to count. He had been a merchant among other things, so the basis was the gross (144).
Of course I learned to count by fours- 4, 8, dozen, 16, 20, 24 (2 dozen), up to 12 dozen which was a gross. A great gross (12 gross) is 1728. Gross for 12 dozen goes back to the 14th c. in England.
I still count by fours.

I remember accompanying my mother to the baker's, where she would buy cookies and buns. The baker always gave her a 'baker's dozen' of the cookies- 13- and I would get to eat the thirteenth. No one seems to give out a baker's dozen any more.

Land survey stakes in Canada divide land into acres. Legally staking property in hectares would require re-survey and re-mapping; obviously expensive and not contemplated. My city house lot is 70 feet wide; this is 21.336 meters. Ugh!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Rowan
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

Like you, Q, I learned to count in fours and still use "gross" on occasion to mean a dozen dozen. For some things I count in threes but I also count in fives. The binary age forced me to count in powers of two as well. But I thought there'd be some interest among 'catters in the folklore associated with measures and started a thread 'above the line'; you gave a perfect illustration of what I was seeking with your "baker's dozen".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:23 PM

Some of these variations are just 'interesting'...but some are quite important. A major issue of WWII was getting spare parts for vehicles and weapons to match. (and there used to be a committee designated by Congress to meet every few years to work on standardized screw threads. They would duly meet, decide that no one could agree, and go away again.)

CAD Standards

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:24 PM

I've been thinking largely in metrics since high school, but there are certain cases where metric representation is just dumb. If you give body temperatures in degrees Celsius rather than Fahrenheit, your precision goes down by a factor of almost 2 (9/5, to be exact). And expressing nautical distances in kilometers is a horror: a nautical mile is one minute of arc (at the equator), which makes chart reading very easy; a knot is one nautical mile per hour.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Rowan
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:47 PM

Dick,
that's why body temperatures, in degrees Celsius, are routinely given to the first decimal place; that wasn't commonly done (in my experience) when using degrees Fahrenheit. The practice effectively (but marginally) increased the precision, although the accuracy of the instrumentation was usually the major limitation.

And maritime and aeronautical personnel still use nautical miles and knots among themselves but, when dealing with the press and others, have to translate those values into km and kph for us lesser mortals. Those lesser mortals in places that still use statute miles and derived mph may not be as accurately informed as they presume, if the values given are not converted from the nautical to the statute versions.

I seem to recall NASA had a bit of a cockup with one of its missions to Mars because of similar assumptions.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:09 PM

Expressing body temps in tenths of degree C is fine, except that the precision expressed exceeds that of the measuring instruments. I was always told that that was a no-no.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Rowan
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:48 PM

And you are right Dick, although many in the professions 'can't be told'. The usual mercury column thermometers that get stuck under the armpit or into the mouth (we won't discuss other orifices) could still be 'estimated to half a division' so honour was salved irrepective of the scale used. These days it's all digital (binary, that is; keep your fingers and toes out of this) and most instruments are made for most markets, so their displays have instant conversions. One electronic 'balance' (weighing machine, really) I use is routinely used to measure grams to 3 decimal places but will, if you ask it nicely, display in ounces, grains (for the gun nuts) and a few other things I never knew about.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:26 AM

And, just to pick a nit or so, SI isn't synonymous with metric. There are some significant concessions to engineering convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:57 AM

I think the Eurocrats did not "give in", they simply decided that the issue was not worth any more effort on their part, and they can let time now finish off the job within a generation or so.

After all, everyone below the age of about 30-35 has been taught the metric system at school, and today's 15 year olds are not about to start learning any other way. Neither (I think) are the mainly immigrant-origin cornershop keepers, at least not without an overwhelming demand from the customers, which I don't see coming. The supermarkets may, or may not, revert to a dual system on the packaging as a sop, but it costs money; and I don't think they'll change their scales. They don't have to. Ditto for the petrol garages.

So the system will eventually disappear of its own, with only perhaps the mile remaining on the road signage the longest, again for cost reasons. The Eurocrat's job is done - might as well appear open-minded and make friends now...

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:32 AM

In the metric system, multiples of a unit are expressed as kilo…, mega… etc. while smaller amounts are expressed as centi…, milli… etc.

In the S.I. system, the unit of weight is the kilogram. If I have a small amount of something, does that mean that should not talk of grams, but rather of millikilograms?

DC

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: PMB
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:00 AM

It's noticeable that quite a lot of motorway junction signs give distances as "1/3 mile", "2/3 mile" etc. To the accuracy with which they are placed, they could easiliy be replaced by 0.5km and 1km. I suspect it's deliberate, a plot by those dastardly Frenchies!

I really get annoyed by the British pronunciation of kilOMeters. It should be KILometres, you don't talk about centIMetres, kilOGrams, megAwatts. A MICROmetre is a thousandth of a millimetre; a micrOmeter is a measuring instrument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:31 AM

I think it's the right decision. Not least because a pint is EXACTLY the right amount of beer!

Metric has the advantage of consistency, using a base-10 number system. Which is fine if you're using a calculator and working to a high level of accuracy. But for everyday use, imperial has a lot going for it. Problems with base 10 of course are that dividing 10 by anything other than 2 or 5 results in decimal places. On the other hand, a foot (and indeed a shilling) divides neatly into 2, 3, 4 or 6. Of course pounds, ounces and stones are a different matter.

And there's something about the actual size of units that favours imperial for everyday reckoning. If someone is described as "5 foot 8" you get a pretty good idea how tall they are. "1.7m" is more or less the same, but the level of accuracy is much less (0.1m = just under 4 inches!), unless you add another decimal place (who can guess someone's height to within a centimetre?)


Not forgetting of course, the names of units: "inch", "foot", "yard", "mile", "ounce", "pound", "stone", "pint", "quart", "gallon"; tried-and trusted, mainly 1-syllable words which slip off the toungue.

As opposed to: "millimetre", "centimetre", "decimetre", "metre", "milligram", "kilogram", "millimetre", "litre" etc; awkward commitee-designed words. Interestingly, in Germany the word "pfund" persists, albeit now used for a metric pound of 500g. Near enough the same, but considerably easier in any language.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: redsnapper
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:38 AM

Not the slightest bit convinced by any of these arguments in favour of the Imperial system I'm afraid... and I grew up with it!

I suspect it will gradually die away over future generations educated in SI/metric... although I still like a pint in a pub

RS

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:58 AM

Johnny,
it may surprise you but we are used to give our height without using any decimals at all. Being 1.79 m I'd say "one seventynine" when asked which is short for "1 m and 79 cm", nothing really different from x foot y inch.

You also may want to look up the etymology of words like litre and gram.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM

GUEST Jonny Sunshine said:

I think it's the right decision. Not least because a pint is EXACTLY the right amount of beer!


Ahhh, but which pint? 15, 16, 20 ounces? Or some other?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

Seems to me much of the conversion policy problem is very similar to why Microsoft has been able to retain its huge advantage in the software business (aside from the monopolistic practices):

It's called "installed base" in the computer world. The pound/gallon/mile system (by whatever name you choose to call it) has a huge "installed base", both in the minds of the users and in books, instruments, signage, prices, and who knows what else.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:15 AM

One real nuisance is the way that, now, if you are trying to repair some woodwork in your house etc, when you go along to B & Q or wherever, you find they don't have the right sized wood. For example, you want a one inch plank, and they don't do them, just some metric approximation.

"...the system will eventually disappear of its own" Not quite, so long as the Yanks hold firm, and I can't see them going metric in a hurry. Of course some of their non-metrics go a bit strange when it come to their mini-pints and gallons, and they've never caught on to using stones, but linear measurements such as inch, foot and miles should be safe enough.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: redsnapper
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

Depends McGrath. Certainly USA commerce and everyday life is deeply non-metric but US science uses SI units like everybody else.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Irene M
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:33 AM

You want confused?
I "do" hot weather in degees F and cold in degrees C, swapping from one to the other at 16C/61F.

I buy fabric through the post from Croft Mill, who sell it in 60 inch widths, but by the metre (and I am quite happy with this as I know what I am getting).

I now have the urge to pop out to buy seven ounces of non-EEC-shaped banana! (You know. The ones they said had to be curved a certain number of degrees.)

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM

The ones they said had to be curved a certain number of degrees. They didn't actually.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:29 PM

Well, if you're looking at lumber measurements, they're hopeless (in the US, anyhow.)A one-inch plank measures about 13/16"; a 2 x 4 is about 1-3/4 x 3-1/2"

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:44 PM

They probably weren't that accurate here - but the important thing isn't absolutely accuracy, it's being consistent, so that when you are mending something the new bit is the same as the old. I normally take along a bit of wood to check. These days the matching replacements just aren't available.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Kampervan
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:54 PM

That's because the timber starts off sawn at 2" x 4" and then gets planed all round (PAR) and finsishes up slightly smaller.

I think it's so funny when customers come in and ask for 3 metres of 4" x 2" softwood.
That just sums up the quirkiness of Britain. Crazy but I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:34 PM

Prior to WW One, a two by four was--what else?--two inches by four inches.

Then, as a wartime economy or conservation measure, it was decreed that a smaller size (I forget the detail) was to be supplied.

The wartime measure (as with so many government dicta) became permanent. Until next time.

I know at least twice since that time there have been similar cutbacks, although I think mainly as a commercial advantage rather than government ukase.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Rowan
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:18 PM

The plank notion that Kampervan described is the same in Oz. The 2x4" was only ever that size (when measured with a carpenter's rule) when it was sawn to size at 'tmill (the one w' the trooble). In those days people used a plane to dress their timber after they purchased it; now it is supplied "dressed" and comes in the 'dressed' size. But suppliers still talk in terms of 'metric foot' when dealing with lengths, and the timber lengths are in multiples of 30cm.

And when McGrath wrote
""...the system will eventually disappear of its own" Not quite, so long as the Yanks hold firm, and I can't see them going metric in a hurry. Of course some of their non-metrics go a bit strange when it come to their mini-pints and gallons, and they've never caught on to using stones, but linear measurements such as inch, foot and miles should be safe enough."

I was reminded that, while the Americans have resisted some conversions, they have implemented others, particularly two of the linear ones he mentions. Most users wouldn't have noticed but the British inch and the American inch were different when converted to centimetres. The difference was significant only at the 4th decimal place (from memory) which is why few noticed when, in 1979 (again, from memory) the Americans changed their definition of the inch to 2.54cm exactly. This had implications for the American foot and the American mile but the differences were negligible for most people. Surveyors, though, had to change so that they use the meter (as they call it) as the basis for such measurements. But not many Americans are surveyors so the rest still think in what they assume are the traditional 'feet and inches'.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 04:19 AM

(for the gun nuts) and a few other things I never knew about

I didn't know they had nuts to start with!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:07 PM

The thing about guns, bollocks or lack of them aside, is that the standard practice for many years, confusingly enough, has been to express the calibre (as in basal diameter ) of a bullet or projectile,as a decimal of an Imperial inch !! Thus we have .30 Springfield, . 303 British, .308 Winchester,.408 Gibbs, .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire, .45 ACP, etc.etc. So decimalisation of the inch has been around for a long time ! My favourite is .375 Wetherby Magnum, but then I don"t have any Nuts, do I ?? Only one way to find out, Liz !!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: bubblyrat
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:13 PM

Actually, make that .400 Holland and Holland Nitro Express !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:50 PM

From online conversions-
Foot

" The U. S. and Britain signed the Treaty on the Meter (The Metric Act) in 1866 which defind the foot to equal exactly 1200/3937 meters (This is now called the Survey foot).
"Then in 1959 the U. S. National Bureau of Standards redefined the foot to equal exactly 30.48 centimeters. Then in 1963 Britain used this definition for the Weights and Measures Act. This is the definition we use today."
Thus today the British and U. S. foot is the same.

According to Infoplease-
"In 1959 an international agreement was reached among English-speaking nations to use the same metric equivalents for the yard and pound for purposes of science and technology; these values are 1 yd. =0.9144 meter(m) and 1 lb=0.45359237 kilogram (kg)." In the United States, the older definition of the yard as 3,600/3937 m is still used for surveying, the corresponding foot (1200/3937 m) being known as the survey foot."

Whee!

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:00 PM

I think it's evident the EU campaign to phase out imperial measures is more than "bureaucratic nonsense" by "jobsworths". After all, as has been pointed out here, not only is it a campaign, but a successful campaign--especially if students are only being taught metric measures, no imperial measures at all. Not even foot and inch? Is that true?

Was the grocer fined? (I know he's dead now). And was he the only one they proposed to fine?

Subject: RE: BS: UK, EU, Metric
From: GUEST,Bert on Kelly's machine.
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 09:25 PM

No Squeaks, currency didn't go decimal it went centigesimal.

The Metrics system was introduced by Napoleon who went mad and wanted to conquer the world.

If you want to copy a madman go ahead.

The standardisation ploy was just a gimmick. When the building trade went Metric in the UK they stopped making half inch copper tube and replaced it with 15 mm. which was the nearest equivalent. Buit when I took some of this to France to do some plumbing I quickly found out that they don't use 15 mm. they use 14 mm. and 16 mm.

It also leads to a particular brand of stupidity in which the users of this wonderful system don't themselves know what they are doing.

I bought a bottle of cider in Normandy which had 100 centilitres molded into the glass.