A celebrated author takes a journey with some old friends to have some fun and heal old wounds. Her nephew comes along to wrangle the ladies and finds himself involved with a young literary agent.

三只熊熊兄弟们因为网络上的名气，以及对大都市的迷恋，他们被迫面对无法预料的混乱，熊熊们不得不展开一场疯狂、危险但又有聚会的冒险之旅，以躲避来自国家野生动物管制局的追捕，于是大大、胖达和白熊一同踏上了前往加拿大的旅程！在旅途中，他们将互相帮忙、渡过种种难关，最重要的是，这趟旅程也将再次证明他们是彼此最好的伙伴。熊熊们是如何相识、又是如何建立起如此亲密的伙伴关系？这一次也将首次揭露当年熊熊们初识的点点滴滴，以及彼此从陌生到熟识的互动过程。

她叫海瑞塔•拉克斯（Henrietta Lacks），但科学家们只知道“海拉”（HeLa）。她是美国南方的贫穷烟农，在她的黑奴祖先世代耕种的土地上生活。她患宫颈癌后，肿瘤细胞被医生取走，并成为医学史上首例经体外培养而“永生不死”的细胞，解开了癌症、病毒、核辐射如何影响人体的奥秘，促成了体外受精、克隆技术、基因图谱等无数医学突破，涉及几乎所有医学研究领域，并贡献多个诺贝尔奖。她的细胞是无价之宝，但是她的家人却毫不知情地生活在贫困中，海瑞塔•拉克斯的名字也无人知晓。当二十年后她的女儿惊闻她还“活着”时，惊恐万状、哀痛欲绝：几十年来科学家都把她关在地下室做实验吗？像《侏罗纪公园》里那样把她克隆了吗？她的细胞在核实验中被炸碎她会感到痛吗？ 美国作家丽贝卡•思科鲁特耗时十年挖掘这段跨越近一个世纪的精彩历史，记述拉克斯一家如何用一生的时间来接受海拉细胞的存在，以及这些细胞永生的科学原理，揭开人体实验的黑暗过去，探讨医学伦理和身体组织所有权的法律问题，以及其中的种族和信仰问题。本书细腻地捕捉了科学发现中的动人故事，及其对个体的深远影响。本书出版之后，在外界的捐赠下，家人终于为海瑞塔树立了墓碑，碑上镌刻着“永生的海拉细胞，将永远造福人类”，对海拉细胞为人类做出的贡献进行了完美注解。 本书已被翻译成二十多种语言，并被美国HBO公司改编为电影，奥普拉•温弗瑞倾情主演，获艾美奖、美国评论家选择奖等多项提名。 【编辑推荐】 1.海瑞塔•拉克斯因这些细胞而死，这些细胞却获得永生，并改变了人类医学史。这是一个关于永生细胞的科学故事，更是一个关于生命、伦理和尊严的动人故事。作者耗时十年挖掘这段跨越近一个世纪的精彩历史，揭开人体实验的黑暗过去，探讨医学伦理和身体组织的所有权问题，以及其中的文化和信仰问题。 2.白岩松、姚晨、罗振宇、姬十三、果壳网、丁香医生诚挚推荐，北京大学医学部教授王一方专文导读。 3.《纽约时报》、美国亚马逊现象级畅销书，入选美国亚马逊编辑共同推荐的“一生要读的100本书”，席卷《纽约客》《华盛顿邮报》《金融时报》《泰晤士报》等全球60多家顶级媒体“年度好书”，《自然》《科学》《柳叶刀》、爱德华•威尔逊等联合推荐。 4.美国HBO改编电影，奥普拉•温弗瑞倾情主演，获艾美奖、美国评论家选择奖等多项提名；豆瓣口碑科幻电影《湮灭》，主演娜塔莉•波特曼阅读本书出镜。 【推荐语】 这是一个关涉生命信仰与价值、种族歧视与平权、患者与职业尊严、科学与医学的目的等一系列话题的传记故事……作者丽贝卡•思科鲁特通过翔实的一手资料和富有温度的生命书写笔触，回眸、还原了六十多年前的一幕幕真相。……在医学转型的夹缝里，技术进步的台阶上……海拉细胞的命运恰恰映射着这个过程中的伦理（道德）脱序，告知不周，沟通不畅，知情同意阙如，以及细胞体内权利与体外权利的分野，技术进步中的异化，如非人化、工具化、功利化、技术化、商业化等。 ——王一方，北京大学医学部教授 再也没有一个已经死去的女性比她（海瑞塔•拉克斯）对在世者所做的贡献更多……引人入胜又令人痛心，一本必不可少的好书。 ——《卫报》 超过十年的坚持，作者思科鲁特仿佛为这本书而生。她是一位年轻的科学记者和执着的调查者，从各种角度记述了海瑞塔•拉克斯对现代医学的贡献，并使每一个角度都引人入胜……这是一部对贪婪和被漠视的生命的道德探究之书……充满鲜活的人物。 ——《纽约时报》年度十佳图书评语 一本不可多得的好书……如果说科学利用了海瑞塔•拉克斯，那么作者就决心改变它。这本书确保她将不再被简化为培养皿里的几个细胞——她将永远是海瑞塔，也永远是“海拉”。 ——《每日电讯报》 这本书让我欲罢不能……一个关于现代医学、医学伦理、种族关系的优美而动人的故事。 ——《娱乐周刊》 科学写作的典范……我读过的最好的非虚构作品之一。 ——《连线》 没有哪本书更好地展现了医学研究中伦理脱序的可怕后果。一个令人心痛的故事，一段优美感人的讲述。 ——《柳叶刀》 作者并未简单地将全部罪责归咎于科学研究者，而是展示了他们最真实的人性……（并在这个过程中）挑战了我们对伦理道德、组织所有权和人性的认知。 ——《科学》

《异见时刻》是美国联邦最高法院大法官（“九人”之一）金斯伯格的图文传记。 鲁思·巴德·金斯伯格（Ruth Bader Ginsburg）于1993年由民主党总统比尔·克林顿提名为大法官。是继桑德拉·戴·欧康纳之后美国联邦最高法院第二位女性大法官，亦是目前唯一一位犹太女性大法官。鲁思·金 斯伯格的一生致力于女性权利的争取、维护与保障。 “声名狼藉的金斯伯格”（Notorious R.B.G.）是粉丝们对这位女大法官的爱称，模仿的是美国著名说唱歌手克里斯托弗·华莱士（Christopher Wallace）的别称。 书中内容一部分是传记，一部分是画集，还有一部分是金斯伯格的案件记录。通过穿插采访、插图、网络热词等素材，对金斯伯格的一生进行了精彩回溯。 本书获得《九人：美国最高法院风云》作者杰弗里·图宾、知名法政译者何帆推荐，《纽约时报》畅销书，获得《波士顿环球报》《时尚》、美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）等书评推荐。 —————— “金斯伯格大法官之伟大，与性别标签和女权立场无关，也与自由、保守之争无涉。她的人生，有大起大落的波折，也有金石可镂的坚持，始终贯穿着正直、顽强、善良、敬业等人类美好品质。如果您对生命真谛或法律精神抱有困惑，可以在这本书中找到答案。” ——何帆，《大法官说了算》作者、《批评官员的尺度》《九人》译者 “轻松、有趣、令人深思的法官生涯记录，解释了为什么新一代如此拥戴金斯伯格。” ——杰弗里·图宾，《九人：美国最高法院风云》作者 “卡蒙和卡尼兹尼克对金斯伯格的法律生涯进行了有力的描写，尤其是她的标志性异见时刻……凭借着她强烈的诚实、坚定的真实以及天生的时尚感（那些颈饰），金斯伯格作为一位文化偶像，值得拥有自己的庞大粉丝群。” ——凯特·塔特尔，《波士顿环球报》 “这本严谨的书为金斯伯格挑战性别成见的开创性案件提供了新的视角。” ——路易斯·梅尔林，美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）副法律主任 “如果你喜欢金斯伯格，本书作者会让你爱上她，金斯伯格不仅仅是一个女权主义英雄，更是一个真正的人。” ——米歇尔·鲁伊斯，《时尚》 “一个谦逊、好学的女性形象跃然纸上……这本书可能写得比较好玩，但是值得去认真阅读。我个人认为，这就是好故事和赞誉的最好范例，很难不为之动容。” ——詹妮弗·西尼尔，《纽约时报》 “这本有趣又认真严谨的书为了解我们时代最为重要的民权人物之一带来了新启示。这是流行文化和严肃学术的融合。我打算送给我的两个女儿一本。” ——吉尔伯特·金，普利策奖得主 多么精彩的书啊：带批注的案例！迷人的照片！为什么她喜欢整晚写作！作为律师打赢的一连串大案，以及她如何选择这些案件！她如何让比尔·克林顿哭泣！我以为我了解金斯伯格，事实上我错了。一本了解这位卓越的法学家的伟大读本，完全可以大笑着读完。 ——雷切尔·玛多（知名美国政治新闻女主播）

2020 film directed by Jeff Orlowski

Eight year-old orphan Beth Harmon is quiet, sullen, and by all appearances unremarkable. That is, until she plays her first game of chess. Her senses grow sharper, her thinking clearer, and for the first time in her life she feels herself fully in control. By the age of sixteen, she's competing for the U.S. Open championship. But as Beth hones her skills on the professional circuit, the stakes get higher, her isolation grows more frightening, and the thought of escape becomes all the more tempting. Based on the book by Walter Tevis.

2016 film by Kenneth Lonergan

Yingying Zhang, a 26-year-old Chinese student, comes to the U.S. to study. In her detailed and beautiful diaries, the aspiring young scientist and teacher is full of optimism, hoping to also be married and a mother someday. Within weeks of her arrival, Yingying disappears from the campus. Through exclusive access to Yingying’s family and boyfriend, Finding Yingying closely follows their journey as they search to unravel the mystery of her disappearance and seek justice for their daughter while navigating a strange, foreign country. But most of all, Finding Yingying is the story of who Yingying was: a talented young woman loved by her family and friends.

Under the direction of a ruthless instructor, a talented young drummer begins to pursue perfection at any cost, even his humanity.

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard, a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

2015 film by Nancy Meyers

2006 film directed by David Frankel

A first-time captain leads a convoy of allied ships carrying thousands of soldiers across the treacherous waters of the "Black Pit" to the front lines of WWII. With no air cover protection for 5 days, the captain and his convoy must battle the surrounding enemy Nazi U-boats in order to give the allies a chance to win the war.

A Theory of Justice is a widely-read book of political and moral philosophy by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two famous principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. [edit] Objective In A Theory of Justice Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Kant) for parties facing such circumstances, and seeking principles of justice to guide their conduct. These parties face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends they seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts. [edit] The "original position" Main article: Original position Like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls' social contract takes a slightly different form from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an entirely and deliberately artificial device he calls the Original position, in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed. "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance." According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles which are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the position of the least well-off. They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association [Rawls, p 11] It is important to keep in mind that the agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and nonhistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. In other words, Rawls seeks to persuade us through argument that the principles of justice that he derives are in fact what we would agree upon if we were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is nonhistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever, or indeed could actually be entered into as a matter of fact. Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society. [edit] The First Principle of Justice “ First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.[1] ” The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office); freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest. It is a matter of some debate whether freedom of contract can be inferred as being included among these basic liberties. The first principle is more or less absolute, and may not be violated, even for the sake of the second principle, above an unspecified but low level of economic development (i.e. the first principle is, under most conditions, lexically prior to the second principle). However, because various basic liberties may conflict, it may be necessary to trade them off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. There is thus some uncertainty as to exactly what is mandated by the principle, and it is possible that a plurality of sets of liberties satisfy its requirements. [edit] The Second Principle of Justice Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.303): a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle). b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of (fair equality of opportunity) Rawls' claim in b) is that departures from equality of a list of what he calls primary goods – 'things which a rational man wants whatever else he wants' [Rawls, 1971, pg. 92] – are justified only to the extent that they improve the lot of those who are worst-off under that distribution in comparison with the previous, equal, distribution. His position is at least in some sense egalitarian, with a proviso that equality is not to be achieved by worsening the position of the least advantaged. An important consequence here, however, is that inequalities can actually be just on Rawls's view, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off. His argument for this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family we're born into) shouldn't determine our life chances or opportunities. Rawls is also keying on an intuition that we do not deserve inborn talents, thus we are not entitled to all the benefits we could possibly receive from them, meaning that at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to equality in assessing the justice of distributions is eliminated. The stipulation in a) is prior to that in b) and requires more than meritocracy. 'Fair equality of opportunity' requires not merely that offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed. It is often thought that this stipulation, and even the first principle of justice, may require greater equality than the difference principle, because large social and economic inequalities, even when they are to the advantage of the worst-off, will tend to seriously undermine the value of the political liberties and any measures towards fair equality of opportunity. [edit] Relationship to Rawls's later work Although Rawls never retreated from the core argument of A Theory of Justice, he modified his theory substantially in subsequent works. The discussion in this entry is limited to his views as they stood in A Theory of Justice, which stands on its own as an important (if controversial and much criticized) work of political philosophy. His subsequent work is discussed in the entry titled John Rawls. Of particular note is his work Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001), in which he clarified and re-organised much of the argument of A Theory of Justice. [edit] Critics of A Theory of Justice A Theory of Justice made a significant contribution to re-establishing interest in political philosophy, and so it has served as the basis for much of the debate since, meaning that it has been much criticized. In particular, Rawls's colleague at Harvard Robert Nozick wrote a defence of libertarian justice in the aftermath of A Theory of Justice, called Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which was critical of Rawls's work. Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together. Another colleague of Rawls's from Harvard, Michael Walzer, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy, entitled "Spheres of Justice," as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick. Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls's theory is an apology for the status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market economy. Feminist critics of Rawls largely focused on the extent to which Rawls's theory could account for, at all, injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the "basic structure of society" for instance, and feminists rallying around the theme of "the personal is political" took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the sexual division of labor. The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized, with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles. However Rawls does not deny this, he uses the original position in conjunction with an intuitive argument to justify his claim of justice as fairness. Some critics allege that Rawls' argument is weakened in failing to denote healthcare as a primary good. Proponents respond by asserting that affordable and accessible healthcare arises as an inevitable result of the benefits attained by following through with the Original Position. One of the most influential recent criticisms of Rawls' theory has come from the philosopher G.A. Cohen, in a series of influential papers that culminate in his 2000 book If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? Cohen's criticisms are levelled against Rawls' avowal of inequality under the difference principle, against his application of the principle only to social institutions, and against Rawlsian fetishism with primary goods (the metric which Rawls chooses as his currency of equality).

自由主义中的保守派只能接受形式上的平等，也就是法律面前人人平等的原则；而自由平等主义者则表现出对于实质平等的强烈关怀。罗尔斯在《正义论》当中提出了关于正义的两条原则：第一条是所谓平等的自由原则，即每个人应该在社会中享有平等的自由权利；第二条原则包括差别原则与机会平等原则。前者要求在进行分配的时候，如果不得不产生某种不平等的话，这种不平等应该有利于境遇最差的人们的最大利益，就是说，利益分配应该像处于不利地位的人们倾斜；后者要求将机会平等的原则应用于社会经济的不平等，使具有同等能力、技术与动机的人们享有平等的获得职位的机会。煌煌50万言的文字，便是围绕这两个原则展开的。

Presenting the tale of American founding father Alexander Hamilton, this filmed version of the original Broadway smash hit is the story of America then, told by America now.

2015 film by Chloé Zhao

Once a rising star of the rodeo circuit, and a gifted horse trainer, young cowboy Brady is warned that his riding days are over after a horse crushed his skull at a rodeo. In an attempt to regain control of his own fate, Brady undertakes a search for a new identity and what it means to be a man in the heartland of the United States.

Armed with only one word - Tenet - and fighting for the survival of the entire world, the Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time.

《六场危事》是一部时间设定在1960年代的喜剧，麦莉·赛勒斯、伊莱恩·梅等出演，讲述一个中产家庭在当年政治动乱中的故事。