52,335 research outputs found

    On the Mailbox Problem

    Full text link
    The Mailbox Problem was described and solved by Aguilera, Gafni, and Lamport in their 2010 DC paper with an algorithm that uses two flag registers that carry 14 values each. An interesting problem that they ask is whether there is a mailbox algorithm with smaller flag values. We give a positive answer by describing a mailbox algorithm with 6 and 4 values in the two flag registers

    HTTP Mailbox - Asynchronous RESTful Communication

    Full text link
    We describe HTTP Mailbox, a mechanism to enable RESTful HTTP communication in an asynchronous mode with a full range of HTTP methods otherwise unavailable to standard clients and servers. HTTP Mailbox allows for broadcast and multicast semantics via HTTP. We evaluate a reference implementation using ApacheBench (a server stress testing tool) demonstrating high throughput (on 1,000 concurrent requests) and a systemic error rate of 0.01%. Finally, we demonstrate our HTTP Mailbox implementation in a human assisted web preservation application called "Preserve Me".Comment: 13 pages, 6 figures, 8 code blocks, 3 equations, and 3 table

    Chinese Mailbox

    Full text link

    DNA Binding of Porphyrin Conjugates: Characteristics and Consequences

    Get PDF
    In the past few issues of Spore, we haven t been able to accommodate all your letters and photos in Mailbox. That s why we re carrying a handsome Mailbox this time and if you want even more readers letters in the next issue, grab your pens now!MailboxIn the past few issues of Spore, we haven t been able to accommodate all your letters and photos in Mailbox. That s why we re carrying a handsome Mailbox this time and if you want even more readers letters in the next issue, grab your..

    The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?

    Get PDF
    In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court created the “Prison Mailbox Rule,” which assesses the timeliness of incarcerated litigants’ filings based on the day they hand them to prison authorities. The rule reduces the structural barriers to filing while imprisoned. Although Houston v. Lack highlighted the unique challenges that pro se incarcerated litigants face, the Prison Mailbox Rule’s subsequent federal codifications did not limit its benefits to pro se litigants, despite purportedly “reflecting” the Houston decision. Federal circuit courts of appeal today are split on whether represented people in prison can benefit from the Prison Mailbox Rule, leaving both litigants and judges with the “unenviable” task of determining who is represented by counsel. At the conflict’s core is a disagreement about whether incarcerated or freed litigants are in the same position when represented by counsel. This Note argues that, even when represented, people in prison face significant barriers to filing that outside litigants do not. Moreover, Houston never explicitly limited the rule to pro se litigants, and the rule’s policy justifications apply equally to those represented by counsel. Accordingly, this Note advocates for the Supreme Court to explicitly hold that all incarcerated litigants are entitled to the benefits of the Prison Mailbox Rule. This bright-line rule would enable courts to apply the Prison Mailbox Rule consistently and predictably, removing a barrier to filing for people in prison. Indeed, that is what the Prison Mailbox Rule was created to do

    Proceeding Pro Se: Misguided Limitations on the Prison Mailbox Rule in Cretacci v. Call

    Get PDF
    Under the “prison mailbox rule,” an inmate’s notice of appeal in either a criminal or civil case is considered filed at the moment the notice is given to prison authorities to be mailed. But the prison mailbox rule originated as a common law rule––having developed in Fallen v. United States and Houston v. Lack––and was not codified in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure until 1993. In light of its complex origins, circuit courts have split over to whom and to which types of filings the rule should apply. More specifically, courts have disagreed over whether the prison mailbox rule should only apply to prisoners entirely unrepresented by counsel––as suggested in Houston––or whether it should extend even to those who are represented in some capacity at the time of filing. This Note analyzes a recent case, Cretacci v. Call, in which the Sixth Circuit joined the majority of circuits and held that the prison mailbox rule applies only to fully unrepresented prisoners. This Note argues that the Sixth Circuit’s opinion relies on an overly wooden view of “representation,” a departure from the text of the Appellate Rules, and unsound distinctions based on the type of filing at issue. By placing misguided limitations on the prison mailbox rule, Cretacci erodes the ability of passively represented litigants to file claims and appeals

    Mailbox Abstractions for Static Analysis of Actor Programs

    Get PDF
    Properties such as the absence of errors or bounds on mailbox sizes are hard to deduce statically for actor-based programs. This is because actor-based programs exhibit several sources of unboundedness, in addition to the non-determinism that is inherent to the concurrent execution of actors. We developed a static technique based on abstract interpretation to soundly reason in a finite amount of time about the possible executions of an actor-based program. We use our technique to statically verify the absence of errors in actor-based programs, and to compute upper bounds on the actors\u27 mailboxes. Sound abstraction of these mailboxes is crucial to the precision of any such technique. We provide several mailbox abstractions and categorize them according to the extent to which they preserve message ordering and multiplicity of messages in a mailbox. We formally prove the soundness of each mailbox abstraction, and empirically evaluate their precision and performance trade-offs on a corpus of benchmark programs. The results show that our technique can statically verify the absence of errors for more benchmark programs than the state-of-the-art analysis

    ADDSMART: Address Digitization and Smart Mailbox with RFID Technology

    Get PDF
    ADDSMART is a research project focused on digitizing addresses of locations and building a smart mailbox by combining wireless sensors, cameras, locks, and RFID readers and tags into a system controlled by an Arduino board. The aim of the project is to explore the idea of address digitization (using RFID tags to store addresses) and incorporate it into a mailbox that can communicate wirelessly with the homeowner to provide mail status updates and home security footage through digital photographs. This paper demonstrates the proposed ideas, describes the design of a smart mailbox, the technology that has been used, and the current results of the work along with future research ideas

    The Scope of the Prison Mailbox Rule

    Get PDF
    Federal courts are filled with situations where an inmate might rely on the prison mail system to mail a document to the court. However, the prison mail system is notoriously unreliable. The prison mailbox rule was formed to provide a fair opportunity for inmates to personally mail a filing to the court before the expiration of the legally permitted time to file. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) codifies the prison mailbox rule. It provides that an inmate’s appeal is considered filed with the clerk when the inmate delivers the filing to prison mail authorities. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Houston v. Lack, an explicit prison mailbox rule did not exist. In formulating the prison mailbox rule in Houston, the Court focused specifically on the struggles faced by pro se prisoners when filing paperwork with the courts. This Note addresses the dispute that was born among the federal circuit courts following the Court’s decision in Houston and the adoption of Rule 4(c). More specifically, this Note addresses whether the prison mailbox rule applies to all prisoners, including those represented by counsel, or whether the rule applies only to pro se prisoners. The question of whether the rule applies to both represented and unrepresented prisoners with equal force comes up with regularity in the federal courts. Where the prison mailbox rule is implicated, whether an inmate’s appeal will be heard on its merits may depend exclusively on geography—does the inmate live in a circuit that follows a narrow interpretation of the rule? If the answer is yes, the appeal may be dismissed, no matter the strength of the appeal on its merits. Only if the answer is no may the appeal be heard on its merits. This Note proposes that the Supreme Court put an end to the disparate treatment of inmate appeals among the circuits by clarifying both Rule 4(c) and its decision in Houston. Due to the text of Rule 4(c) and the policy behind the creation of the prison mailbox rule, this Note suggests that the Supreme Court, in resolving the split among the circuits, hold that a broad interpretation of the prison mailbox rule should be employed, thus rightfully allowing all inmates, rather than just unrepresented inmates, to benefit from the rule’s protection
    • 

    corecore