Miranda v. Arizona: Questions

Miranda v. Arizona is well over half a century old. Have police interrogation tactics changed since then because of the ruling?
Shouldn't detectives be allowed to put some pressure on criminals, since their job is to find out who's to blame? Why or why not?
Should it be every American citizen's responsibility to know their basic rights, and not have to be reminded of them by the police?
What's the correct balance between guarding against police abuse in a questioning situation, and letting someone get away with something because we failed to read them their rights?
Are there non-verbal ways the police could coerce or force a confession that would not fall under the Miranda Warning? In other words, are there any loopholes that could be exploited by law enforcement?
What should happen if someone is convicted of a crime but was never given the Miranda Warning?
Should juveniles have Miranda rights the same as adults?
What were the dissenters' main argument against the ruling?
How does the ruling protect the police as well as the suspects?
Why don't we just videotape every interrogation to make sure nothing illegal is going on?