JB

Authorize.net recently started denying TLS requests that were less than 1.2. I thought I was fine, but I had one server running CentOS 5. It was not fine. I had a very ancient Rails application on an ancient box unable to connect to Authorize.net.

Anyway, if you are in a similar situation, here is how I solved it. This may not be exact, but should hopefully get you far enough along to figure it out yourself:

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; color: #454545; min-height: 14.0px}

For authorize.net's TLS upgrade, it is based on your server's OpenSSL library version. To see if you are compatible, run the following command:

` openssl s_client -connect secure.authorize.net:443`

If you get a one-line error message like this:

6641:error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure:s23_clnt.c:586:

Then you are NOT compatible. To fix, you need to either update your OpenSSL in Linux or get the latest OpenSSL from here - https://www.openssl.org/source/

For building, you may have to configure it something like this:

export CFLAGS=-fPIC

./config shared

make

make install # this one as root

I also copied the generated shared libs into /lib64. In theory, after updating, it would be best to rebuild ruby from source. However, absent that, there is a trick you can do:

Create a new file, I called mine ruby_openssl in the same directory as the old ruby. The file should have the following contents:

#!/bin/sh

export LD_PRELOAD=/lib64/libssl.so.1.0.0:/lib64/libcrypto.so.1.0.0

exec /opt/ruby-1.8.7-p352/bin/ruby $*

The LD_PRELOAD should go to the shared files that were installed by installing OpenSSL, wherever you happened to install them.

Then, in your apache config, reference your new ruby_newopenssl wherever you were referencing ruby.

Permalink | |

JB

So, I've been working in Xamarin for cross-platform phone development. I was using their AbsoluteLayout class to try to get a bar graph working using relative sizes (AbsoluteLayout with relative sizes gives everything an absolute position from 0, top or left of the screen, to 1, the bottom or right of the screen). The goal was to have the bottom of the bar graph halfway down the screen (to allow room for negative values to point down). The goal was to look like this:

The problem, though is getting the boxes to align at the center line. Now, part of the problem may be my inexperience with the platform. There may be a really easy way to do this. However, here is what I was running into:

I thought that Xamarin worked by aligning the your specified position to the middle of the box. Therefore, I started by calculated the box height, and then calculating the origin of the box by setting it above the 0.5 (i.e., 50%) line by half of the box height. Therefore, when it extended, it should extend down to the 0.5 line.

The problem, though, is that Xamarin *doesn't * align to the middle of the box. It varies the alignment by where in the positioning it is positioned. So, if you position a box at 0.2, not only is it *positioned* at 0.2, but the anchoring point is also 0.2 down the box!

Therefore, I needed a way to calculate where I needed to actually position the box to get it to rest on the 0.5 line.

The way I calculated it is this - let's call the y-position that you want the box to rest on as P. Let's call the y-position which you are going to set your box to as A (for the *anchoring* position). Let's call the height of the box itself H.

What we want to happen is for the bottom of the box to hit P.

Now, we can split up the measurements from the top of the box to P into two lengths - the length from the top to the anchoring point (which is actually just A) and the length from the anchoring point to the bottom of the box.

Since the anchoring point sits A down on the box, the length of the top half of the box is given by A*H. However, this is not the distance we want. We want the distance down the *rest* of the box. That will be (1 - A)*H.

So, our two distances are: A and (1 - A)*H. They should add together to be P. Therefore, our equation is:

A + (1 - A)*H = P

However, we want to solve this for A - we already know our box height (H), and we know what position we want this to extend to (P). Therefore, we have to solve for A:

A + (1 - A)*H = P

A + H - A*H = P

A - A*H = P - H

A*(1 - H) = P - H

A = (P - H) / (1 - H)

And this gives a perfect calculation for A. In my case, since P is 0.5, I just do A = (0.5 - H) / (1 - H) and it comes out perfectly.

It should be fairly simple to come up with similar calculations for top alignment and center alignment. Additionally, these work with right-to-left alignments as well.

JB

I always enjoy finding new ways of doing things. I was reading Henle/Kleinberg's Infinitesimal Calculus, which is a great book. It has, throughout the book, a main text and a side-text. The side-text is infinitely more interesting than the main text.

Anyway, on pages 65-66, it gives a method for finding the slope of y = x^2 at a specific point, let's say its at (2,4). The way you do it is kind of strange, but it seems to work. You start by defining a line to intercept the equation:

y = mx + b

Now, we don't know what m and b are, but we *do* know what x and y are. Therefore,

4 = 2m + b

We don't really care about b in the long run, so we want to find an equation for b to remove it from the mix:

b = 4 - 2m

Now our equation for the line becomes:

y = mx + 4 - 2m

Interestingly, we actually have a value for y - y = x^2, so this becomes:

x^2 = mx + 4 -2m

We can rearrange this into quadratic form with:

x^2 - mx + (2m - 4) = 0

Using the quadratic formula, we can do:

x = (m +- sqrt(m^2 - 4(2m - 4))) / 2

x = (m +- sqrt(m^2 - 8m + 16)) / 2

x = (m +- sqrt((m - 4)^2)) / 2

x = (m +- (m - 4)) / 2

Now, we want to take the "+" side of the "+-" since we are solving for "m". Otherwise, we will lose "m". Therefore, this becomes:

x = (2m - 4) / 2

x = m - 2

So, at the point we are looking at, what is the value of x? At (2, 4), x is 2. Therefore

2 = m - 2

m = 4

Therefore, the slope at (2, 4) is 4.

Interestingly, we can also generalize this to get the full derivative for y = x^2. To do this, we will introduce the variables p and q to be the specific x and y values at a specific point. Therefore, the slope at (p, q) for y = x^2 is:

y = mx + b, therefore q = pm + b, therefore b = q - pm

q = p^2, therefore b = p^2 - pm

y = mx + p^2 - pm

y = x^2, therefore:

x^2 = mx + p^2 - pm

x^2 - mx + (pm - p^2) = 0

x = (m +- sqrt(m^2 - 4(pm - p^2)))/2

x = (m +- sqrt(m^2 - 4pm + 4p^2))/2

x = (m +- sqrt((m - 2p)^2))/2

x = (m +- (m - 2p))/2

x = (2m - 2p) / 2

x = m - p

m = x + p

Since p = x, this gives

m = x + x = 2x, which is the derivative of x^2

I don't know how many classes of functions you can do this successfully for, but I imagine it should cover quadratics at least.

JB

A lot of people do a lot of thinking about whether or not infinities exist, and wonder how real numbers can add up to infinity.

Sometimes I wonder if that sort of thought might be the inverse of reality - perhaps the infinities are the foundational realities, and all finite numbers are merely infinities in ratio.

JB

I have recently been randomly curious about random calculus-y things. Anyway, the notion for the second derivative of a function is d^2y/dx^2. This is the second differential of y divided by the first differential of x squared.

However, there is, technically, also a d^2x, though it doesn't get much attention. And, d^2y and d^2x can be put into ratio with each other, but I don't really know what it means. But it is an interesting operation nonetheless.

So, the derivative of an equation is dy/dx and the derivative of its inverse is dx/dy.

The second derivative of an equation is d^2y/dx^2 and the second derivative of its inverse is d^2x/dy^2.

Therefore, to get the d^2y/d^2x you just do:

(2nd Derivative of y wrt x / 2nd derivative of x wrt y) * (First derivative of the inverse)^2

Or:

(d^2y/dx^2) / (d^2x/dy^2) * (dx/dy)^2

I will post an example later when I have a good one.

JB

I don't know why this isn't listed as a standard rule. The differential of the exponent function, u^v (u raised to the v power), is pretty basic, and you can use it to formulate the other exponent rules for differentiation. However, for some reason it seems to be left off of most rules for differentiation.

The basic rule is this:

d(u^v) = v*u^(v-1)*du + u^v*ln(u)*dv

This can be clearly seen to be a more general form of u^n, because if n is a constant, this becomes:

d(u^n) = n*u^(n - 1)*du + u^v*ln(u)*0

And that zero drops it to the rule we all know and love:

d(u^n) = n*u^(n - 1)*du

This can be derived as follows:

z = u^v

ln(z) = ln(u^v)

Using log rules, we get:

ln(z) = v*ln(u)

Now take the differential of both sides:

d(ln(z) = d(v*ln(u))

Differentiating both sides, we get:

dz/z = v*du/u + ln(u) * dv

Then we multiply by z:

dz = z*v*du/u + z * ln(u) * dv

Substituting in z = u^v:

dz = u^v * v * du / u + u^v * ln(u) * dv

Now, u^v/u simplifies to u^(v-1), giving us:

dz = v*u^(v-1)*du + u^v*ln(u)*dv

Since z = u^v, dz = d(u^v), so

d(u^v) = v*u^(v-1)*du + u^v*ln(u)*dv

JB

Apparently, there was a change to something in postgres 9.5, or maybe just my install of it. If you upgrade your Postgres database version and suddenly your rails app stops doing migrations, add the following line to config/database.yml database config to get it working again:

` schema_search_path: public`

The error message i was getting was:

`ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: PG::DuplicateTable: ERROR: relation "schema_migrations" already exists`

Basically, sometimes Rails was finding the schema_migrations table, and sometimes it wasn't, but setting the schema_search_path fixed it.

I'm still not sure where exactly the problem came from, but setting the setting fixed it.

The notation for the second (and higher) derivatives in Liebniz notation has always troubled me. The second derivative is usually notated as d^y/dx^2. And I always wondered, why is the the 2 in relation to the d on the top, but in relation to the whole term on the bottom?

This puzzled me for a while, and I looked through at least 10 Calculus textbooks to find the answer, all to no avail. Finally, I put pen to paper and figured it out. The answer was straightforward, and I am sure that whoever invented the 2nd derivative Liebniz notation knew why they did it that way, it's just that every Calculus book since then seems to have forgotton.

Anyway, the usual notation for the derivative operation id d/dx. I eventually came to realize that this is not a single operation, but TWO operations in one. The first is to take the differential (not derivative) of the equation. For that, I mean, let's say you have the equation y = 2x. The differential of that equation is dy = 2xdx. Doing a differential instead of a derivative is powerful, because it allows a more natural approach to both implicit differentiation and multivariable differentiation.

Now, the derivative is simply the differential divided by dx. So, if our differential is dy = 2xdx, then when we divide by dx we get our normal notation dy/dx = 2x.

Now, let's leave off dividing by dx, and just look at the differential. What happens if we take a second differential?

In this case, we have to treat dy as a separate variable. So, if the differential of y is dy, what is the differential of dy? This is where the d^2y comes in. The 2 is by the "d" not because it is "d squared", but it is "d applied twice". So, if we take our initial differential dy = 2xdx and take another differential, what do we have?

By the product rule, we get:

d^2y = 2((x)(d^2x) + (dx)(dx))

Now, since we want the second derivative, we divide both sides by dx twice (once for the first derivative, and once for the second), which is the same as dividing by dx^2.

That gives us:

d^2y / dx^2 = 2((x)(d^2x) + (dx)(dx)) / dx^2

The (dx)(dx) simplifies to dx^2, and we can separate this out at the plus sign to give us:

d^2y / dx^2 = 2(x)(d^2x)/dx^2 + 2(dx^2)/dx^2

This further simplifies to:

d^2y / dx^2 = 2(x)(d^2x)/dx^2 + 2

Now, we know that the second derivative is 2, so that means that 2(x)(d^2x)/dx^2 must equal zero. But why?

Well, let's rewrite this term a little:

2x * (d^2x)/(dx^2)

d^2x/dx^2 is simply the second derivative of x with respect to itself!

To understand why this must be zero, first imagine the first derivative of x with respect to itself: dx/dx

This must always be 1! Another way of stating this is that "for every change in x, the corresponding change in x is equivalent", which seems obvious.

Now, 1 is a constant, so the second derivative must be zero! This zeroes out the whole term, leaving:

d^2y/dx^2 = 2

Thus, we have the notation of the derivative from first principles.

Another way to look at this is to use the quotient rule.

If we start with dy/dx, then take the differential, what do we get?

((dx)(d^2y) - (dy)(d^2x)) / dx^2

If we separate, we get:

(dx)(d^2y) / dx^2 - (dy)(d^2x)/dx^2

The first term simplifies to d^2y / dx. The second term is our second derivative of x with respect to itself again, so it becomes (dy)*0, giving us:

d^2y/dx - (dy)*0

Which gives us just

d^2y/dx

Now, the second step of the derivative is to divide by dx. Doing so gives us:

d^2y/dx^2

Which is our second derivative!

JB

**Update**: I found that this is a standard formula, but it is referred to as an "arc length" formula, not a line integral. I knew it had to be somewhere, I was just searching the wrong terms.

I was playing around last night, and I came up with, what appears to be, a general solution for line integrals. I have looked around and I have not found this equation anywhere, although I am certain in must be well-known *somewhere*. In any case, I will give it here, because it is definitely not well-known on the Internet.

This is an equation for determining the line integral of y = f(x), where f(x) is a true function of x (i.e. it passes the vertical line test), and is differentiable on the portion of the line where you want to find the length of the line segment. Most line integrals work by adding in an auxiliary parameter, t, to the equation. This operates directly on the function itself.

The short version:

To get a line integral from x=a to x=b on y=f(x), we can use the following formula:

Evaluate this from x=a to x=b and you will have the length of the line. Note, the software I was using gives this as a partial derivative on the inside. I don't know enough to know if it is only limited to partials or not.

So, if you know the derivate, you can figure out (in theory) the line integral. Whether or not this actually helps you find a solution to the integral is another story.

Now, how does one arrive at that?

Well, first, remember, that an integral is an infinite sum of infinitesimals. A curve is simply an infinite sum of tiny, infinitesimal lines. So, all we need to do is find the length of each line segment and add it up.

How big are our line segments?

Well, if y=f(x), then the line segment is going to be the line between the points x, y and x + dx, y + dy. The distance formula states that the line length is sqrt( (x1 - x0)^2 + (y1 - y0)^2). The difference between x + dx and x is simply dx, and the difference between y + dy and y is simply dy. So, each of our infinitesimal line segments (dL) will be:

dL = sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2)

If we square both sides, we get the following:

dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2

dL^2 - dx^2 = dy^2

Now we can divide both sides by dx^2 and get:

dL^2/dx^2 - 1 = dy^2/dx^2

dL^2/dx^2 = 1 + dy^2/dx^2

dL^2/dx^2 = 1 + (dy/dx)^2

Now we can square root both sides:

dL/dx = sqrt(1 + (dy/dx)^2)

dL = sqrt(1 + (dy/dx)^2) dx

And this is the final form of our equation. I tested it out with a few simple integrals (a line and the top half of a circle) and it seems to work as expected. And, as I said, if you have a line that loops back around, you still need to use the parameterized methods. But this is an easier way to setup line integrals where f(x) is a true function of x.

JB

This week, Authorize.net is starting its rollout of new server certificates, signed by a new certificate authority - Entrust. If you are using ActiveMerchant, this could break your stuff! It may or may not affect newer versions of ActiveMerchant - I don't know, I only have sites using old versions (like 1.18). So, even if it breaks, the solution may be different depending on your version of ActiveMerchant. Still, I'll try to keep the info detailed enough that you can find the solution yourself.

First, the problem. This affects you if, when ActiveMerchant tries to connect to Authorize.net, you receive the error:

SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=SSLv3 read server certificate B: certificate verify failed

Note that you may not get this error when trying to connect to Authorize.net via manual Ruby code, but only via ActiveMerchant.

The reason for this is ActiveMerchant maintains its own list of Root CAs!

Therefore, to fix, you have to, (a) make sure that the new Root CAs for authorize.net are stored in your server's root CA list, and (b) make sure that ActiveMerchant is using your server's list rather than its own. For good measure, you can also copy ActiveMerchant's CA list to yours.

So, first, to add the Entrust root CAs to your Linux server (assuming it is a fairly recent CentOS-based distro), do the following as root:

- Enable the trust infrastructure with the following command:update-ca-trust enable
- Go to /etc/pki/ca-trust/source/anchors
- Grab the .cer files from https://www.entrust.net/downloads/root_request.cfm (just right-click on the links, copy the URLs, and download them to the current directory with wget)
- Go to wherever the gem files for your project are, and find the active_utils gem. In the lib/certs directory, there is a file called cacert.ca or something like that. Copy that to /etc/pki/ca-trust/source/anchors
- Now run the following command to update your CA list:

update-ca-trust

Now you have all of the certs installed. Now we need to tell ActiveMerchant to use your own certs rather than its internal list. However, again, this is in the active_utils gem, not the activemerchant gem. Within the gem, find the file called lib/active_utils/common/connection.rb. Now look for a function called configure_ssl. Copy that function to your clipboard.

Now create a file in your own project called config/initializers/active_merchant_pem_fix.rb (the name doesn't matter as long as it is in config/initializers). In this file you need to have:

module ActiveMerchant class Connection # Paste the configure_ssl function you copied from lib/active_utils/common/connection.rb here. end end

Now, there will be a line that says something like this:

http.ca_file = File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../certs/cacert.pem'

This is the offending line!!! Comment that sucker out!!!

For my version of ActiveMerchant, this is what my file looks like:

def configure_ssl(http) return unless endpoint.scheme == "https" http.use_ssl = true if verify_peer http.verify_mode = OpenSSL::SSL::VERIFY_PEER # http.ca_file = File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../certs/cacert.pem' else http.verify_mode = OpenSSL::SSL::VERIFY_NONE end end

Now that you have the updated root CA on your server, and ActiveMerchant is using your server's list rather than your own, you are all set!