Musim haji telah tiba
orang2 berangkat haji
pulang-pulang dapet gelar bu hajjah or pak haji
kmrn pemerintah saudi arabia merazia para peserta haji ilegal
pertanyaannya:
klo hajinya ilegal, sampe ke indonesia, dia dipanggil ap y???
reply y!!
suwun
je vous aime
BOsan
itu yang selau terlintas di alam pikiran q
I need somebody to release me outta here
well libur datang juga
so enjoy your holiday
buat p KO2, where’s your blog?
g pernah d update pak I ‘ll wait lo
oh y , buat nak2 d skitar cibubur,
liat w main y pas mlam taon baru
jadwal menyusul
suwun
je vous aime
mukaku lagi kecapean (jelek khan)
Will Smith stars as Robert Neville in the sci-fi action adventure I am Legend .
Barry Wetcher / Warner Bros.
Will Smith used to be able to crack a smile, and to crack up the audience with a joke, a silly song or his elastic, eloquent body English. Lately, though, the most reliable box-office magnet in Hollywood hasn’t given himself or his fans much to laugh at. He was a tough, emotionally constipated cop chasing androids in I, Robot, and an ambitious man who loses his job, his home and his wife — everything but his young son — in The Pursuit of Happyness. Except for a romantic holiday in Hitch, the one-time Fresh Prince has become a stolid, solitary warrior in a gulag of gloom.
Now, for Christmas, he has another one-man dystopia drama. It’s I Am Legend, directed by Francis Lawrence, the Viennese director of music videos who made his feature debut with a good science-fiction film, Constantine, and written by Akiva Goldsman, based on Mark Protosevich’s script for a 1999 I Am Legend project that was to be directed by Ridley Scott and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. As in I, Robot, Smith has seen the future — and it sucks.
September 2012, three years after the onset of a virus with catastrophic consequences. Weeds have sprouted and flourished in Times Square. Tattered billboards for Broadway shows mock the desolation of the place, which is now ugly, cratered and overrun by wildlife — kind of what it was like in the 1970s. Except that now Times Square is empty of all human life except for Robert Neville (Smith), who patrols the streets with his rifle and his faithful dog Samantha. He spots a deer and is ready to gun it down, when a lioness leaps on her prey and begins devouring it, as her mate and cub watch. As we used to say about New York 30 years ago, it’s a jungle out there.
I Am Legend is the third major movie adaptation of the 1954 novel by Richard Matheson; the others were the The Last Man on Earth with Vincent Price in 1964 and The Omega Man with Charlton Heston seven years later. Matheson is a prolific, influential writer of horror and sci-fi novels, short stories and films, from Roger Corman’s Edgar Allen Poe movies of the 60s to the seminal 70s TV films Duel (Steven Spielberg’s first feature) and The Night Stalker and the 90s films What Dreams May Come and Stir of Echoes, based on his novels. Some of Matheson’s TV fables — the Twilight Zone story about the gremlin on the airplane wing, the Tales of Terror jape about a Zuni fetish doll chasing Karen Black around her apartment — linger at the base of many a viewer’s spine, three or four decades after they were first aired. Credit those residual shivers to a nonchalant, nonpareil master of the creep-out.
Early in his career (he’s still going at age 81), Matheson was fascinated with man’s isolation in the post-nuclear world — Robinson Crusoe or Natty Bumppo after the H-bomb or an epidemic. The Shrinking Man, published in 1956 and immediately filmed as The Incredible Shrinking Man, considered the effects of radiation on an ordinary fellow who grows smaller and smaller, to infinitesimal size. In I Am Legend, Neville, seemingly the only person not killed or infected by a bacterial plague, fends for himself, searches desperately for other survivors and hunts down the bands of infected mutants who come out at night looking for people like him — if there are any people like him left. Both novels take a science-fiction premise and ask: What practical skills, what inner resources, can a man bring to battling life-ending odds? The Shrinking Man and I Am Legend are how-to books about coping with the unthinkable.
It’s funny how filmmakers are drawn to Matheson’s subject of post-apocalyptic annihilation, yet feel the need to “fix” the story and welsh out on its conclusions. Each of the I Am Legend adaptations embroiders or softens the original, offering a vision its makers see as more pertinent to their time. Not that there’s anything morally pernicious about changing a book when it becomes a movie. The only question that matters: Does the new thing work?
For this I Am Legend, a qualified maybe. The word “mixed” isn’t mixed enough to fit my response to this film. I like its fancifully ghostly, ghastly look: the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges missing their center sections (they were bombed to keep people from getting out or in), the whole idea of the most congested U.S. city utterly abandoned, as if everyone had finally moved to the Sunbelt or the Hamptons. I admire, and share, the movie’s extended interest in Neville’s daily ritual as cop (hunting down the vampire-like infectees), woodsman (looking for animals that will put fresh meat on his table) and lonely guy (setting up a table each day at noon in case any undead survivor has heard his signal). Smith, whatever mood he’s inhabiting, is a watchable actor, and he and the dog (who gives him an audience surrogate to explain things to) have a lovely, close rapport.
I go for the scary scenes too. The lions aren’t the big problem here; it’s the mutants, whom exposure to the virus has made gaunt, pretrenaturally athletic (they can climb tall buildings at several bounds) and as ravenous as any killer carnivore for human flesh. One sequence, in which Neville follows the dog into a dark building and is confronted by the creatures, worked on my nerves with a superior technical and artistic skill set — a mixture of computer beasties and old-fashioned suspense.
The new movie has turned Neville into a soldier-scientist (and former TIME cover boy), seeking a cure for the virus in the basement of the lavish Washington Square townhouse he has turned into a fortress (and where, don’t ask me why, he sleeps in the bathtub, with his dog). So now he’s Jonas Salk, and Jesus too, ready to give his life so that others may live again. It’s in the last half-hour that I Am Legend imports new elements that both propel the story to its explosive climax and just aren’t as compelling as the day-in-the-life story that preceded it. The notion the movie floats, of an uninfected colony north of the city, is literally too Utopian to seem either plausible or attractive to a hardened case like Neville. Smith has inhabited the character so fully, and let moviegoers inside with him, that they may prefer going down with him than escaping to some fantasyland that looks like the one in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village.
And even if the world is saved in September 2012, don’t these people know the deductions made from the Mayan calendar — that the world will end on Dec. 21 of that year? They have only three months to live!
Somebody in Hollywood has to be thinking about a movie on that subject. Here’s hoping it will have a smarter ending — and be more legendary — than this one.
Last night on the official Google blog, Udi Manber, vice president of engineering, announced that Google is testing a publishing platform called Knol.
It’s being compared to Wikipedia and Mahalo. While it’s a somewhat different take on knowledge collection, these comparisons are apt.
From what we know so far, Knol is a wiki-like platform. Authors can create topics, and there are tools to interlink articles and content, but as Manber says, an article, or “knol,” is “just a Web page.” Where it differs from a wiki is its focus on the author. All knols will highlight who wrote them.
Knol should make it easy to create nicely formatted reference pages.
(Credit: Google)
That small difference becomes dramatic when you put Knol alongside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative system. There is no author listed on a wiki page because a page may have many authors (if you want to, you can divine who said what on the history pages).
Since Knol pages will be authored, users won’t, presumably, be able to dive in and edit another page. They’ll be able to submit edits to the author for approval, though. So much for open collaboration. But as a platform for authors who might want to make some money from their work, it’s a better bet (Knol will allow authors to monetize their pages as they see fit).
Purists may think that since Google is in the business of monetizing content via advertising, it should not compete with other publishing platforms. However, this is not the first time that Google has gotten into this business.
Blogger, of course, is Google’s biggest success in text-publishing platforms. But Google also experimented with its own database, Google Base, in which it not only indexes the information but also stores it. And then there’s YouTube.
I would compare Knol to Blogger, and eventually, I think it will have Digg-like elements. Knol is like Blogger because it’s a personal publishing platform. It’s all about giving authors a platform for writing. It’s just a like a blog, but much more structured. If you like a Knoller, you’ll likely want to read more written by that person, or even subscribe to his work.
It could become Digg-like, in that multiple Knol pages on the same topic will compete with each other. And while the Manber’s post hinted that the arbiter of Knol quality will be Google search rankings, I cannot imagine that there won’t, at some point, be both a social network of Knol users and a main page that ranks the most popular Knol pages by votes, page views, discussion flow, or other group metrics.
At this point, based only on the official blog post, Knol looks like a solid end-user publishing platform. I strongly doubt that it will put much of a hurt on Wikipedia, since its author focus makes it much the antithesis of the open, community-driven wiki model. Knol looks more like a Google version of About.com, Mahalo, or Squidoo.
No word on when–or if–Knol will be released to the public.
See also: Google develops Wikipedia rival on News.com. If you’re interested in this story, I recommend that you read the official Google post as well as Danny Sullivan’s post on Search Engine Land.
NUSA DUA, Indonesia — The world’s faltering effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions got a new lease on life on Saturday, as delegates from 187 countries agreed to negotiate a new accord over the next two years — pushing the crucial debates about United States participation into the administration of a new American president.Many officials and environmental campaigners said American negotiators had remained obstructionist until the final hour of the two-week convention and had changed their stance only after public rebukes that included boos and hisses from other delegates.
The resulting “Bali Action Plan” contains no binding commitments, which European countries had sought and the United States fended off. The plan concludes that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required” and provides a timetable for two years of talks to shape the first formal addendum to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty since the Kyoto Protocol 10 years ago.
“The next presidential election takes place at the halfway point in these treaty talks,” David D. Doniger, who directs climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council and served in the Clinton administration, said on his Web log on Saturday. “So the U.S. will field a new team in the second half. And there are good odds that the next president will get serious on global warming.”
But the White House, while calling the negotiating plan “quite positive” in a printed statement, said the problem lay elsewhere. It described “serious concerns” about the limited steps taken by emerging economic powers.
Without citing China and India by name, it clearly singled them out, saying: “The negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone. Major developing economies must likewise act.”
In the talks, China and other emerging powers did inch forward, agreeing for the first time to seek ways to make “measurable, reportable and verifiable” emissions cuts. But those countries showed no signs of agreeing to any mandatory restrictions any time soon, saying their priority remained growing out of poverty.
The finish to the negotiations came after a last-minute standoff in the public plenary at the end of a day of high emotions, with the co-organizer of the conference, Yvo de Boer, fleeing the podium at one point as he held back tears.
The standoff started when developing countries demanded that the United States agree that the eventual pact measure not only poorer countries’ steps, but also the effectiveness of financial and technological assistance from wealthier ones.
The United States capitulated in that open session, which many observers and delegates said included more public acrimony than any of the treaty conferences since the 1992 framework.
The concession, though, came after a more profound shift by the Bush administration, which agreed during the two-week conference to pursue a new pact fulfilling the unmet goals of the original treaty; the pact would take effect in 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol expires.
While many observers described the United States change as a U-turn, it was the culmination of months of movement by the Bush administration, which had for years insisted that the 1992 treaty was enough to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate.
In 2005 talks in Montreal, for example, the American negotiating team walked out of one session, rejecting any talk of formal negotiations to improve on that pact.
Since then, the Bush administration has been confronted by new scientific data on climate change and by growing political pressure both internationally and domestically.
Still, while accepting on Saturday the need for a new agreement, the United States retained the flexibility that it had sought at the outset, fending off European attempts to set binding commitments on emission reductions. American negotiators said that was vital to gain global consensus.
The targets sought by Europe and others remain in the action plan — including the need for rich countries to cut emissions by 2020 up to 40 percent below 1990 levels, and a 50 percent cut in emissions globally by 2050. But they are now a footnote to the nonbinding preamble, not a main feature of the plan.Andrew Light, an expert on environmental ethics at the University of Washington who was in Bali, criticized the Bush administration for insisting on those targets being sidelined, saying the United States had, in essence, rejected the foreboding climate projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which it had repeatedly praised in recent weeks.“We could have moved on from here with a confident range of future cuts,” Mr. Light said. “Instead we have to move on with the same continued uncertainty. At the beginning of the week I was really heartened by the public praise the U.S. delegation was giving to the I.P.C.C. and now I can’t help but think, was it all lip service?”
Some environmental groups criticized Europe for not sticking to its guns. But it appeared that, in the end, the Europeans followed a path recommended in a speech last Monday by former Vice President Al Gore, fresh from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.
He advised Bali negotiators to look beyond the Bush administration, whose tenure ends in one year.
Beyond the histrionics and the politics, there were deeper reasons for the continuing clashes: in particular, the huge wave of industrialization and economic growth sweeping Asia.
The United States and Europe were largely responsible for taking the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, to its current concentration of 380 parts per million from 280, a level which, until the industrial revolution, was not exceeded in at least 650,000 years.
But the growth in emissions for decades to come will largely be driven by developing countries, where some two billion people still cook on firewood or dung and crave the comforts and prosperity that come with abundant energy.
According to a recent analysis led by economists at the Electric Power Research Institute, if rich and poor countries do not together divert from “business as usual,” the concentration by 2040 could exceed 450 parts per million, a threshold that many scientists say could set in motion harmful changes for centuries to come.
Europe prevailed over the United States in one area, insisting that the next two years of talks proceed on two tracks: one for those countries, including the United States, not committing to mandatory limits, and a second building on the Kyoto Procotol, the 1997 update to the original treaty that requires emissions reductions in 36 major industrialized nations, but has been rejected by the United States.
The United States team in Bali had fought against that, demanding that a new agreement encompass the world’s major polluters and have sufficient flexibility, and no hard targets, to do that.
But in the end the United States had to agree to two tracks to avoid a total breakdown of the talks.
That is important, environmental campaigners said, because it guarantees work toward new mandatory gas restrictions in 2012, when the limits under the current Kyoto accord expire.
It also sustains a mechanism that, in theory, the United States could join under a new administration — if Congress becomes less insistent that the biggest developing countries move in lockstep.
That demand is reflected in some language in the current climate bill moving forward in the Senate, which demands “comparable” action from such countries.
There were many moments of drama and theater in the negotiations, at a resort complex on the southern tip of Bali, involving 11,000 officials, environmentalists, industry lobbyists and journalists. But nothing else matched the point on Saturday, in the final tumultuous plenary, when the American team was booed for trying to block a proposal by India.
Kevin Conrad, the negotiator from Papua New Guinea, rebuked the American delegation. “If for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us,” he said. “Please, get out of the way.”
He was alluding to remarks made by an American official, James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, last week to a Reuters reporter, who quoted him as saying, “The U.S. will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow.”
That statement had become a sore point to many delegations.
A few more statements were made, but none of America’s traditional allies came to its defense.
Finally, Paula Dobriansky, the lead American negotiator, spoke.
“We came here to Bali because we want to go forward as part of a new framework,” said Ms. Dobriansky, the under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs. “We believe we have a shared vision and we want to move that forward. We want a success here in Bali. We will go forward and join consensus.”
The delegates erupted in lengthy applause, realizing that a deal was finally at hand.
Thomas Fuller reported from Nusa Dua, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York. Peter Gelling contributed reporting from Nusa Dua.http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/16/world/15climate.600.jpg
According to The Arizona Republic, VELVET REVOLVER is among the artists who have been confirmed for the 944 Super Bowl Village in Old Town Scottsdale, Arizona. The band featuring Scott Weiland along with former members of GUNS N’ ROSES will appear the night of Saturday, February 2.
During the day, the Village will be home to NFL memorabilia sales, ESPN radio and NFL network broadcasting.
Super Bowl XLII will be held on February 3, 2008 at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
By J.P. Vettraino
On Sale: January 2008
Expected Pricing: $40,000
By all indications, the next Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution will do nothing but reinforce its status as a high-performance icon.
Called Concept X, the show car you see here was unveiled at Detroit’s North American International Auto Show in January 2007. Yet with a few small changes, it is essentially Evolution X, the all-new Lancer Evolution production car.
The Evo traces its roots to Mitsubishi’s World Rally Championship program, and has long since achieved cult status among hard-core driving enthusiasts around the world. The term evolution has traditionally been used in rallying to describe the latest generation rally car. In Europe, rally cars are the ultimate hot rods. Here, the Evo is a compact sedan that beats up on serious sports cars.
The Lancer Evo X goes on sale in January 2008, and Mitsubishi promises the biggest leap in performance potential ever achieved from one evolution to the next.
The Evo X is based on the 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer, which goes on sale in March 2007. As such, it’s a bit less boxy than its predecessors, though slightly larger in most dimensions.
The Evo X boasts some subtle styling tweaks, of course: a giant hood scoop, oversized fenders and the trademark rear wing. High-tech LED turn signals are imbedded in the side mirrors. Only one styling element on Concept X will not appear on the production Evo X: The 20-inch wheels are a bit too large for street use on a car this size. The production version will come with 18-inchers.
Underneath the flashy body, the Evo X will be loaded with the latest in running gear. The engine remains a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, but it’s all new, and much lighter than the previous version. It’s also mounted lower in the car to lower the center of gravity. Just the thing for fast gravel stages. (We’re inquiring about a long-term test car.) Mitsubishi has not released production figures, but we’ll predict at least 300 pound-feet of torque and 300 horsepower, give or take 10.
The Evo X will feature a new six-speed automated manual transmission. While it offers a fully automatic mode, it’s not a conventional automatic with a torque converter. Rather, it’s more like a manual with a clutch that operates electrically, like those in Ferraris and other exotic machines. This transmission can be shifted with magnesium levers on the steering column.
Buyers who prefer a conventional manual with clutch pedal can choose a five-speed. In rallying, strong, close-ratio gearboxes are often harder to get than powerful engines.
The drive system is as trick as they come. Called Super All Wheel Control (S-AWC), this fulltime four-wheel system integrates electronic stability control and an active rear differential.
The Evo X gets forged aluminum suspension components, rather than the stamped steel parts on a standard Lancer. Its suspension will no doubt be much firmer. Yet Mitsubishi engineers say they’ve focused on making the Evo more comfortable and less demanding for everyday use. Because the integrated body/chassis is much stiffer than before, the engineers say they have actually softened the suspension settings, allowing a more comfortable ride without losing the response or handling enthusiast drivers expect.
Inside, the Evo X will offer firmer bucket seats with huge bolsters to keep occupants firmly in place. Unfortunately, the suede-like Alcantara dash inserts and neon trim inside Concept X won’t make the production version. Yet keeping with the daily driver theme, the Evo X will offer more creature comforts than ever, including Mitsubishi’s 650-watt Rockford-Fosgate audio system, a touch-screen navigation system, Bluetooth cell phone interface, steering wheel audio controls and an automatic climate control system. The only thing we couldn’t find on the list was a co-driver.
Like the upcoming 2008 Lancer, the Evo X will offer passive safety features that set a new class benchmark: front seat-mounted side-impact air bags, curtain-style head protection airbags front and rear, and a driver’s knee-protection airbag
Indonesia membuat awal yang cukup bagus dalam pertandingan penyisihan Grup A Sea Games 24 yang berlangsung di Stadion Utama Peringatan Ulang Tahun ke-80 Raja Bhumibol Adulyadej, di Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand, Minggu, 2 Desember 2007, setelah menundukkan perlawanan Kamboja 3-1 (1-0). Hasil ini membuat untuk sementara, Indonesia memimpin klasemen. Satu lagi pertandingan di Grup A baru berlangsung beberapa saat yang lalu antara tim favorit juara, Thailand berhadapan dengan Myanmar.
Meski meraih kemenangan dan mendominasi hampir sepanjang pertandingan, Ivan Kolev harus menyadari betapa banyak pekerjaan rumah yang harus diselesaikannya. Tampil dengan formasi 4-3-3 dengan menurunkan tiga penyerang, Corneles Geddi, Airlangga Sucipto, dan Ian Kabes, Indonesia memang boleh dibilang mengurung pertahanan Kamboja yang diasuh pelatih asal Australia, Anthony Scott O’Donell.
Baru dua menit, tendangan kapten Eka Ramdani masih bisa ditepis kiper Kamboja, Samreth Seiha. Enam menit kemudian, giliran sepakan Ian Kabes yang diblok Seiha. Gol pertama bagi pasukan Merah Putih baru tercipta lima menit menjelang jeda, lewat sundulan Airlangga memanfaatkan umpan silang Kabes. Skor 1-0 untuk Indonesia bertahan sampai turun minum.
Di babak kedua, lagi-lagi Eka dkk gagal menyelesaikan sejumlah peluang. Keputusan Kolev untuk memainkan Emmanuel Wanggai dan Jajang Mulyana cukup jitu. Daya dobrak Indonesia semakin menggigit. Di menit ke-72, Indonesia mendapat hadiah tendangan penalti setelah Jajang dijatuhkan Chan Dara. Sayang, eksekusi yang dilakukan Eka sangat buruk. Tendangannya lemah dan mudah dibaca Seiha.
Kegagalan itu setidaknya membuat moral Sam El Nasa dkk terangkat. Akibat koordinasi pertahanan Indonesia yang lemah, Kamboja mampu menyamakan kedudukan di menit ke-79 lewat tendangan striker cadangan Teab Vathanak di kotak 16 meter. Sepakan keras Vathanak tak mampu ditepis kiper Dian Agus Prasetyo. 1-1.
Gol penyeimbang itu membuat Eka dkk tersengat. Tak butuh waktu lama, hanya berselang satu menit, Indonesia kembali unggul lewat sodokan Wanggai memanfaatkan bola flick sundulan Jajang. Unggul 2-1 kian menambah semangat juang anak-anak Merah Putih. Tiga menit menjelang bubaran, tendangan bebas Ardan Aras dari luar kotak penalti memastikan keunggulan Indonesia. Skor 3-1 bertahan sampai wasit Mohamad Hadimin Shahbuddin (Brunei Darussalam) meniup peluit akhir.
Sesuai dengan jadwal, Indonesia bakal kembali berlaga di tempat yang sama pada hari Selasa, 4 Desember, berhadapan dengan Myanmar. Indonesia bakal menghadapi partai berat menantang ti, favorit Thailand, pada hari Jumat, 7 Desember 2007.
Susunan Pemain:
Indonesia:
Agus Dian Prasetyo, Achmad Jufriyanto, Fandy Mochtar, Muhamad Roby, Mohammad Nasuha, Ardan Aras, Atep (Emmanuel Wanggai), Eka Ramdani, Corneles Geddi (Jajang Mulyana), Airlangga Sucipto (Arif Suyono), Ian Kabes.
Kamboja:
Samreth Seiha, Tieng Tiny, Om Thavrak (KK), Soun Thoun, Sun Sovannarith (KK), Hok Sotitya (KK, Teab Vathanak), Keo Kosal, Sam El Nasa, Khim Borey, Kouch, Sokumpheak (Chaya Chan), Sinoun Nuth.
Wasit: Mohamad Hadimin Shahbuddin (Brunei Darussalam)
Persib Bandung harus menjamu Persitara Jakarta Utara di luar markas regulernya di Stadion Siliwangi karena sanksi Komdis PSSI. Bermain di Stadion Jalak Harupat, Bandung, Sabtu, 1 Desember, tidak juga mendatangkan keberuntungan buat Maung Bandung. Setelah takluk dari Sriwijaya FC yang membuat Arcan Iurie dipecat, Persib kembali kalah 0-1 dari tamunya.
Di menit kelima Persitara menggebrak. Laskar Si Pitung, julukan Persitara, merangsek pertahanan musuh. Sebuah peluang dituntaskan lewat tendangan bola voli Hariman Siregar, namun sayangnya masih dapat ditepis kiper Persib, Cecep Supriatna.
Menit ke-12, Cecep kembali melakukan penyelamatan gemilang. Tendangan menyusur tanah Kurniawan Dwi Yulianto hanya membuahkan sepak pojok. Sedangkan beberapa menit sebelumnya Persib membuka ancaman melalui kombinasi serangan Zaenal Arief dan Redouane Barkaoui.
Persib perlahan mulai menguasai permainan. Di menit 31 tendangan spekulasi Lorenzo Cabanas nyaris mempermalukan kiper Persitara, Dadang Sudrajat. Persitara tidak berdiam diri dengan hanya mengokohkan barisan pertahanan. Sesekali serangan balik dibangun pasukan Abdurahman Gurning. Justru dari serangan sesekali inilah Persitara memimpin terlebih dahulu pada menit ke-36.
Gol bermula dari penetrasi Itimi Dickson di sektor kanan. Bek sayap kiri Persib, Erik Setiawan tidak mampu menghentikannya. Bola yang sepertinya sebuah umpan silang membentur tangan Cecep dan meluncur ke gawang. Persib mencoba bangkit namun sampai babak pertama usai Maung Bandung tidak mampu memecah kebuntuan.
Babak kedua berjalan, Persib yang tertinggal berusaha menyamakan kedudukan. Beberapa kali tuan rumah memperoleh peluang emas yang tidak dapat dituntaskan. Gelandang Persib, Salim Alayidrus nyaris membobol gawang Persitara yang masih dapat di tepis Dadang Sudrajat. Namun satu insiden yang memprihatinkan terjadi. Di tengah memanasnya permainan, mantan striker timnas, Kurniawan ditampar mukanya oleh bek Persib, Patricio Jimenez.
Insiden itu merusak apiknya permainan kedua tim sepanjang 2×45 menit. Sedangkan ketika rombongan Persitara tiba di stadion, bobotoh menyambutnya dengan lemparan benda keras. Wajah salah seorang ofisal Persitara sampai mengucurkan darah. Sementara itu, kekalahan ini membuat Persib gagal masuk ke babak empat besar, sedangkan Persitara dengan 43 poin berhasil menggusur Persema Malang dari peringkat sepuluh.
