the day plus so much more. >> we begin with the growing controversy. >> answers to the questions no one else will ask. >> real perspective, consider this on al jazeera america strong words from n.a.t.o. calling on russian troops to pull back from ukraine. we are joined on the passing of comedy legend joan rivers. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this". those stories and more ahead. >> the n.a.t.o. summit gathered leaders from all over the world in whales. >> it's the most crucial n.a.t.o. summit since the end of the cold war.

>> the top the agenda russia's military incursion into ukraine. >> russia has not made one step to make peace positive. >> al qaeda announced an expansion into india. >> trying to get back some of the lime light stolen by the islamic state. >> thousands of fast footworkers joined a protest. >> move over t rex, there's a new dinosaur in town. >> that dumpster has been sweating it out inside a tiny steal home. >> i'm a proud home owner in austin. >> what we do is a calling. >> comedian joan rivers die at the age of 81. she was viciously funny, brutely honest ... we begin with the crisis in ukraine. the turmoil took center stage at

the wales 2-day summit. with the petro porashenko by his side, n.a.t.o.'s secretary-general said the world's leaders are united with ukraine in no uncertain terms. >> we call on russia to end its illegal and self-declared annexation of crimea, which we do not recognise. we call on russia to pull back its troop from ukraine. ukranian president petro porashenko called for a ceasefire if a meeting takes place on friday, with russian representatives and the organization for security cooperation in europe. >> if it is confirmed and a meeting takes place, i will address the army general staff leadership and order a bilateral ceasefire. we hope the implementation of the peace plan will be launched tomorrow. all our partners and i are looking forward to it. >> ukraine is not a member of the n.a.t.o., russian foreign

minister sergey lavrov responded that a partnership between n.a.t.o. and ukraine could doom any peace plan. an editorial written by president obama and david cameron called for n.a.t.o. to increase pressure on russia because of what they called its meddling. >> let's bring in al jazeera's diplomatic editor james bays from newport wales, the summit. the two big issues for the n.a.t.o. meeting are ukraine and is, the islamic state. the primary focus was supposed to be ukraine. n.a.t.o. secretary-general called this a crucial summit at a crucial time because of what is going on with russia. ukraine is not an n.a.t.o. member. its president was there. what action can we expect n.a.t.o. to take. >> we have seen some actions coming from n.a.t.o., a series of measures that will help the

ukrainians. some will help the ukranian forces on the ground. they are limited measures, the military measures - help with cyber crime. medical help, rehabilitating some soldiers that have been injured and training methods. what has been announce are deterrent measures, a rapid reaction force for n.a.t.o. n.a.t.o. has a rapid reaction force, and this is a very rapid reaction force, a spear head. it will be about 4,000 troops able to respond within about two hours. the last thing that is being discussed that will not happen at n.a.t.o., but a washington d.c. level and e.u. level is the idea of more sanctions, and they are talking about that too. >> the russians have not responded too positively to any of this, have they. >> the russians are angry about n.a.t.o. getting involved. they don't like the idea of

ukraine joining n.a.t.o. ukraine has been thinking about joining n.a.t.o. for about 10 years. it's been involved in operations in bosnia, kosovo, afghanistan, and in 2010 wanted to remain a money -- non-aligned state. the message coming back is it was for the ukranian people to decide, and backed up by the ukranian president, reminding about the elections coming up. >> the barbarianism. ukraine prime minister david cameron and president obama coauthored an op ed calling on n.a.t.o. to confront the threat and resist impulses. what is n.a.t.o. to do on that front? >> it's not something that will happen from n.a.t.o. itself as an organization.

it is something where there's a degree of consensus, as western leaders they've been discussing this idea. the idea in the op edis to build a grand coalition, not just n.a.t.o., referring officials to what was done before desert storm, taking on saddam hussein. they are referring to the idea of the coalition, not the access. i don't think any of the western leaders would back a ground offensive as there was against saddam hussein. they are not talking about anything like that on the ground in iraq and syria. >> very important issues and an important meeting in wales. james bays, diplomatic editor. for more, let's turn to stefan f cohen, a professor emeritus of ny studies. he wrote an article and is

author of "soviet fates and lost alternatives from stalinism and the new cold war." good to have you back. >> thank you will. >> let's start with n.a.t.o. we saw ukranian president petro porashenko saying he is ready for a ceasefire tomorrow, after the meeting with russia, happening on friday morning. he has n.a.t.o.'s backing - russia not happy about that, saying that could be a deal breaker. what will it take for a ceasefire? >> i don't know about n.a.t.o.'s backing. i hope n.a.t.o. does not back him, that will drag united states into a war with russia. when you talked to me three or four months ago, i said we were three steps from war with russia, we are now one. >> i didn't think it was that close. a lot of analysts on the show have been reluctant to call it a cold war. you have not been reluctant saying we are back in a cold war. >> i'm too old for nonsense,

looks like, smells like, acts like, sounds like - it is a cold war. the events have logic. one led to another, since you and i first talked three months ago. i said to you if this escalates it will bring the united states and russia face to face. now, today, we have talked about ukraine wanting to join n.a.t.o., it can't. it's not qualified. the fact that people are talking about that is a provocation to russia. let's go back to the ceasefire. it's important. about 3,000 people have died in these cities, it has got to stop. petro porashenko said nobody else should die. he's right. petro porashenko didn't want a ceasefire until this week. he thought he was winning in eastern ukraine against the rebels, now he's not. there's an argument as to why not, did russia send in equipment, did the separatists get their act together.

n.a.t.o. is the only horse or dog in the fight. petro porashenko is exceedingly weak. >> he was winning the war. there are several thousands russian drops in ukraine, and we have a reporter, harry fawcett, with an al jazeera crew, and they captured 11 battle tanks, two armoured personnel car yours, a multi rocket launch system, mobile artillery pieces with a range of more than 30 miles. the crew was stopped at a checkpoint by troops with battle tanks. russia is claiming it had no troops, as it did in crimea. when you have a country that has, if not invaded, to use president obama's terms, has an incursion in the ukraine, doesn't the ukranian government have the right to fight to get these guys out. >> yes and no. let's go back to what i was saying before. the danger from the beginning is a political dispute in ukraine,

becomes a ukranian civil war. the danger was that the ukranian civil war would become a proxy war between russia and the united states. that has happened. now, antonio, what happens in a proxy war? we see them. the two great powers help the surrogates. is russia helping the rebels? of course they are. are we helping kiev fight the war. we cite you one statement - the deputy secretary of the department of defense of the united states testified we have embedded dod officials in kiev's department of defense. americans are over kiev. on the question of weapons, the ukraine was, during the soviet era, and after the soviet earo, a depot of... >> yes, including nuclear. >> we can get anything we want in ukraine. what kiev doesn't have is money.

what the rebels didn't have was organization. we gave kiev money, the russians gave them organization in the form of advisors, and people are dying. and for no reason. >> people are dying, a million people are displaced. it can't help vladimir putin, a lot have go into russia. >> it's not helping anyone, not j just putin, there's a lot dying. >> if there's an insurgency and you help the government to put down the ipp surges si -- ipp urgency. >> why do you say it is legitimate? >> there was a president. >> they overthrew the president. >> he left. >> no. >> sure, there was an uprising, there was an election. >> there's an argument. >> do you arg it's not a civil -- argument it's not a civil war. >> no, we got involved with it in terrible folly, and russia

had to be involved because virtually every russian is married to a ukranian. we shouldn't have got deeply involved. we should have insisted as we had the opportunity and tried to do is the ukrainians reach a political solution. when we didn't stick with that, and backed a government coming to power within a coup, the civil war came. and i'll tell you, if you want a statement that upset you - these 3,000 that died, some of that blood is on the hands of the united states. this is an unnecessary war. it could have been solved diplomatically back in may and april. >> you have got to admit that russia has a big hand in what happened there. and if the russians had not tried to destabilize the eastern part of ukraine, maybe the 3,000 wouldn't have decide. >> wait, are you telling me if russia hadn't destabilized eastern ukraine, that ukraine would be stable.

>> no, it wouldn't be stable, but it wouldn't be like it is today. >> it would be political. that's where we are today, a ceasefire, where no one dies, and politicians do what they are paid to do. it takes two to tango, as regan used to saying, we are not tongoing. >> thank you very much turning to the terrorist groups - the brutality, financial resources of the islamic state group relegated al qaeda to a smaller recall. ayman al zawahiri released a video about releasing a new branch. is this a threat or a desperate reaction to is's rise. joining us is robert mcfadden, senior vice president of a group providing strategic intelligence

service, and a former commander with a naval service, and an expert on al qaeda and other terrorist groups. let's start with the video, ayman al zawahiri has not been seen on video, al qaeda has denounced the islamic state group, the islamic state group has denounced al qaeda. why is he doing this, why is he doing it now? >> actually, this really is a big deal in middle east watchers and security intelligence services. ayman al zawahiri has not been heard from since earlier in the spring, after the public rebuke, and humiliation by abu bakr al-baghdadi, the leader of this thing called the islamic state, where he said no, he was not going to obey al qaeda core. ayman al zawahiri. those months went by, there was no direct response from the al qaeda corp. the only thing that ayman al zawahiri, the official media wing of al qaeda core did was

rerelease tapes of osama bin laden, where it was emphasising there was a religious precedent for the way to establish a state. that was his first strategy in showing that, emphasising in that, for example, that we have a leader of the faithful who is omar. >> the former head of the taliban. >> exactly. afghanistan taliban. nothing after that. a remarkable thing happened in a few weeks when a clerk from saudi arabia part of the al-nusra front. an affiliate of al qaeda corp - a public letter that made it into the public realm saying, "sheikh, i'm in, where are you", there was no response. is this an attempt on al qaeda's part to remain relevant? >> absolutely no doubt. first and foremost the safety on

the tape, and what it was about with the naming of the new affiliate in the indian subcontinent. this was the answer. instead of a public tit for tack. where ayman al zawahiri may set up for losing faith with all that is going op with is and i.s.i.s., it was not a direct talking or arguing about that. he looked to the east with this - with setting up something in india, and reafirmed again that the chain of command, if you will, for the leader of the faithful is through mohlif omar. >> he didn't mention the terrorists, but talked about growing discord among evil doers. what do you think this means for the rest of the world. is this insignificant, or could it be a growing danger. will we see a tit for tat. a competition between is and al

qaeda to see who and most relevant and who can do the most damage. >> a few things to consider. for intelligence services, security services always a concern. from the days of osama bin laden up through ayman al zawahiri, al qaeda does not release communiques in a vacuum, they serve a purpose. that is a concern. in india right now, of much concern is the security services there, to what this means. something to consider though as well, in a lot of ways there's more contrasts and comparisons between this thing called is and al qaeda. al qaeda is consistent of showing itself and leader of the vanguard of the international jihad, which means foementing -- fomenting resolutions, and going after the united states. many that i spoke to say "look, we go after you, the united states, because if it wasn't for

the united states those illegitimate governments would not be in place." this is an affirmation... >> is is hell bent on holding a caliphate. they are killing muslims. al qaeda feels that is has gone too far. >> yes. i mean, a different direction of extremism. from the mid 2000s, there's ample record where al qaeda says we have to be careful. still it is afghanistan, pakistan. over 4,000 pakistani muslims died in various forms of violence. >> what you mention though, again, this is where is is about hit, control and hold on to. al qaeda was never part it of. >> all the hitting and nothing else. >> a quick final question. could it be that al qaeda is on the ropes? >> no doubt it's on the ropes as

far as publicity. its place on the mannedle as a leader -- mantle as the international leader of the jihad - its narrative, strategy for showing its viability. >> let's see what happens and hope nothing does. now for more stories from around the world. we begin in virginia, a jury convicted former virginian and his wife for accepting gives in change for preferential treatment. among the gifts, a shopping spree for the first lady, and a watch for the governor. the first governor to be charged and convicted of a crime.

bob mcdonned could face 80 years in prison. next, picket lines where fast food workers are striking for higher wages. 30 protesters were arrested in detroit after blocking a road on the city's east side, and 19 arrested in chicago. 34 were arrested in new york after blocking an intersection outside a times square mcdonald's. thousands of fast food workers went on strike and home-care workers, another low paying industry, joined the protest on thursday. philadelphia - a team of archeologists unveiled the largest land animal discovered, a dinosaur called dreadnot-ous-trani. because the dinosaur had nothing to fear. 85 feet long, 65 tonnes, it had no predators. it was not much smaller than a boeing 737. a member of the titanasours -

scientists believe bigger ones could be discovered. islam suffers a kidnapping i the islamic state terrorists. a look at what the future holds. america is outsourcing much of national security to private companies. why we can't go to war or make peace without them. harmeli aregawi is tracking the stop stories on the web. what is trending. >> an app combining politics and shopping. would you decide on purchases based on company's corrections. a staffer made it possible to do that. i'll tell you more, coming up. >> while you watch, let us know what you think. join the conversation on twitter and on facebook and google+ pages.

as world leaders in wales discuss how to combat the

brutality of the islamic state, iraqi president is asking n.a.t.o. to join the u.s. in fighting the terrorists. n.a.t.o. secretary-general rasmussen said the alliance would consider a request for help to stop is. thursday the terrorists kidnapped 50 men south of kirkuk, dragging them into cars, with no explanation. >> the minister of defence said iraqi forces killed three islamic state leaders in attacks in mosul and kalifa. the fighting and the air campaign have taken center stage, and the new inclusive government under mohamed badie is elusive. joining us is the author of "the struggle for iraq's future, how corruption, sectarianism under mined democracy", is the former legal advisor to the n.a.t.o.

mission it iraq in 2005 to 2010. the president of iraq gave an interview saying u.s. air strikes helped to push back terrorists. he's asking for n.a.t.o.'s help. u.k. says they'll help to arm the kurds. re-establishing national institutions is more important than strengthening what you call a rival regional matter. >> is it important for the kurds to fight back against a well-armed is. >> sure, of course, the priority at this stage is a military solution to the islamic state, and its attempted expansion and occupation. there's no question that the iraqi security forces is not possible to do that on their own. the solution is military - there's no question about that.

at the same time one has to be realistic about medium to long-term possibilities, and what you need to resolve the situation on a long-term basis is not establishing regional armies that would collapse in the way the iraqi army would collapse, what you need it to establish a semblance of the rule of law and equity and equality, and a sense of identity that people can feel part of, that want to be a part of. >> in your "new york times" op ed, it was entitled "iraq's rot starts at the top", you wrote that it's not only a problem of former prime minister maliki who is the problem in all this, you said: is there hope for a democratic iraqi government. we have got the new prime minister haiffder al-abadi and

government forming a government appears like a pipe dream. >> there's hope, one can't exclude the penalty that things will improve. your right to suggest there's not much room for optimism, because it's not a problem relating to nouri al-maliki's performance. he did not do a good job. he's been criticized for his performance. a large chunk under the political elite would not have done better than he did. i do not mean to suggest that circumstances to make poor decisions - they were his own. he was not forced to engage in the way he did. the rest of the political crisis has not shown any aptitude, any sense - they have not given us a reason to believe they wouldn't have done better, based on statements, their own behaviour. they have been just as corrupt

over the past eight years. you talked about iraqi national identity, and that is something we talked about on the show a lot. you say that iraq's political class, that some of these people may want iraq to split up along sectarian lines, something we have talked about here a number of times, a lot of american politicians talked about that, the splitting up of iraq into a sunni, shi'ite and kurdish area. you think that would be a disaster. >> there's no question that it would be a disaster. i find it incredible that american politicians, at this stage, after everything they have done in iraq, and all of what they have done, in the face of failures, even a military standing on its own feet, using the pressure and blood invested in the county, that they are willing to engage in this discussion that iraq doesn't have a hope because of sectarian

tensions. by engaging in that discourse, they are deflecting from themselves, saying it's not the fault of corruption and incompetence on their part and iraqi allies, but the fault of iraqis, that we hate each other. we are. ians, and -- we are barbarians, and it's our fault that the military can't stand on its own two feet and that the army hasn't had training for the past 10 years. nothing to do with the cpa or american officials responsible and on the ground in iraq at the time. the other thing that they are doing is pushing us towards never ending war. at this stage the situation is terrible, there's a huge amount of conflict. to formalise a break-up of iraq is to guarantee that we'll engage in a few decades of war at the very least. at the minimum result of

breaking up iraq is that we'll engage over where the borders will lie. there's no agreement between the iraq communities as to where the borders will lie between us, and what will happen is that within each of the enclaves, a sunni, there would be conflict. as soon as they decide they can't live with the other, you'll find they won't be able to live with themselves. a clear camp -- example is in the 1990s, this a short period of time, they engaged within the kurdistan region, there was a civil war after one party asked for reason intervention. the thought of the break up of iraq would lead to more peace, and it's the fault of iraqis because of their own sectarian tensions is a gross distortion

of truth and irresponsible on the part of americans and other officials. >> we are seeing infighting within the sunni areas with is, and disturbing reports from where you are in tunisia, trying to join the is terrorists. appreciate you joining us to bring us your perspective, thanks. you may be surprised to hear that there's a new breed of soldier fighting to protect our freedoms who are not part of the u.s. military. they are part of organizations called private military and security companies, and the contractors who work for them are so indispensable that during the iraq war there were times when numbers exceeded that of troops deployed there. the contractors have become a critical part, our guest argues they come with a risk. joining us an author "invisible

soldiers - how america out sourced our security", ann, great to have you here. you call them invisible soldiers, they are an m.e.r.s.anry, who have become indispensable to security around the world. you quote former senator saying we cannot go to war without contractors or peace without contractors. how did this happen? >> i showed the evolution of the privatisation of defense and security in the group. it's a gradual progression. coming out you have a rise of a new industry of companies that are north-east just working for u.s. and under u.s. contracts now, but they are working for the u.n., for the shipping industry, multi national corporations, and the boost is in what has been called the

first contractors war, the iraq war, where there was a bon jnsa of u.s. contracts and a broad range of services. >> they become multibillion corporations. we talk about a broad range of service, that is astonishing, the breadth of their role. we are using them in all sorts of capacities. >> that's right. it's an industry that sa growing constantly and we are not aware of it. most people think black water is on the third incarnation. if they don't see black water or scandals in the head lines or we draw down the troops, withdraw from iraq and afghanistan, people think the industry couldn't exist. yet it does, and it grows, and expands. >> we leave behind lots of contractors in iraq. there were more contractors in

iraq after the war, than american soldiers there. the basic question is why should we care. what is the difference between using these guys and our own military. >> the problem is that in democracy we should be involved and know the full impact of war. we should know who is defending and securing us, who is - where are they trained, you know, what are the rules of engagement. >> how are they different, and what are the dangers that you see? >> the dangers is one word - indifference. i think if you turn the other way and don't care about who is defending and securing your nation, basically you are adding to a plague of indifference that in and of itself is a threat to security. don't you think? >> there's questions about accountability. >> huge questions about accountability, and it's an international industry. so you have legal accountability issues from an international

scope. and you have the accountability within the level of - in the u.s. contracts, for example, there are layers of subcontractors, so, you know, who are these people who are representing us. >> people who have nothing to do with the united states resting us. >> right. >> -- representing us. >> right. >> possibly creating havoc. >> the issue is trance persons si. this is an industry and these are companies pursuing markets and want to do a good job. some want to do what they do well. the problem is that there should be transparency by the government. they should reveal their role in our contingency operations and every aspect of our defense and security. and a greater regulation and oversight. the good companies i

interviewed, many within the industry want a level of regulation and monitoring because the bad companies are ending up on the head lines, and it's bad for them. >> it could hide how many are dying for america. >> yes. >> cost. can't we save money, though, by using the contractors, instead of having a larger standing army, we use the contractors when we need them. >> the question is about the difference between cost effective and efficiency versus effect iness. in a -- effectiveness. in a defensive strategy, if you talk to people within the military - which i did - they tell you that sometimes the most important security and strategy is about ectiveness and not necessarily efficiency. and they are on-call companies.

we can employ them under the radar. you don't have to go through the messiness and slowness of democracy. >> that's the problem. we are not going through democracy, which is important. >> yes. >> fascinating, throughout-provoking stuff. the book "invisible soldiers." >> thank you. and now a new app on the web, we'll check in with harmeli aregawi. >> it's called buypartisan. the app allows users to scan items of food and products to learn about the company's political contributions. for example 48% of this correction goes to democrats, compared to 25% republicans and 26% to others. proctor and gamble, the company behind bounty, and others, gives largely to republicans, 70% of contributions to the g.o.p., 20% to the democrats.

in the three weeks since launch buypartisan has over 1,500 subscribers. i asked the company founder what is the profile of someone that uses it. >> it reaches the 5% hard core on either side, republicans and democrats, as well as those that are disinfected with government, thinking there's too much money in politics. >> the app has critics. "the washington post" editorial board hoped that it fails saying: >> cobert says he wants the app to empower people. >> we don't tell people to buy democrat, republican or not at all. we provide the information that whatever someone does with it, it's up to them.

>> we asked viewers on the web if they'd use byepartisan: . >> let us know what you think. join the conversation online. an issue-based app is on the pipeline for next year. >> dick joins us to remember his friend show business trail blazer joan rivers. and as a tms turn 45, we see why they are great for the bottom line of bank, but not those using us. and a professor joins us half a year after living inside a dumpster. per cent pass

can we talk? sadly we will never here joan rivers speak her signature words

again. the trail-blazing legend known for her kaustic sense of humour died on thursday. with her trademark raspy voice, she was the master of invention, who never stopped working or making us laugh, in a career lasting more than 50 years. dick cavot joins us, hosting his own talk show, and on public television. he is the author of "talk show", confrontatio confrontations, commentary and off-screen secrets. thank you for joining us. i know you were friends of joan for years, so i extend my condolences, there are not many of you. but you know her from going back to when you worked comedy clubs in new york in the 1960s. she was an original. >> yes, and i obviously never

expected back then to see this day, what a sad thing to happen. just about everything else had happened to joan. the sad part of this - the sad ancillary part of this is that we will never hear what she would have said about her misadventure and her illness had he recovered. -- had she recovered. i didn't expect her to. the bulletins and comments were not encouraging, were they. they had an ominous ring that things were not going great. but, yes, we played little ding ding dinghy -- dinky clubs. even though we were unknown they put the names out front. as i and joan were coming to

work for free re heard a guy say "joanne rivers and dick cav-ot." >> she was a trail blazer in many ways. let's listen to her. >> don't you think men like intelligence more? >> please, are we going back to that. >> a brain. >> no man put his hand up a woman's dress looking for a library card. >> she was one of the first females to do stand-up with the boys, particularly that tough-talking. >> she was known as sharker in the trade. but she really, really hounded it out there, and she survived some of the worst nights, and so did i, in our small clubs, but i think she survived better. she almost - i don't know, she almost seemed to seek adversity

in her work and life, perhaps because she enjoyed how well she survived each time, and came back for more. >> in that context i want to play a clip about her career and being a comedian, something she said on an episode of "louie." >> if you want a real job, honey, there's a million things you can do. what we do is not a job. sounds so stupid. what we do is a calling, my dear. we make people happy. it's a calling. >> now, she really lived the ups and downs from exploding in popularity as johnny carson's substitute host, movies and her talk show. the failure of the show and the suicide of her husband, she did not have a smooth all-success kind of life.

>> joan did not have it easy. i used to talk to her about things backstage while we waited for four or five people to come see us that night, and i said, "when are you happiest?", and she has to admit it's when i'm out there, on stage. and that's true of a hell of a lot of people in the business, including johnny carson, i would say, her great supporter and nemesis, really, who, i think was only happy on stage, and i saw him closely and knew what was going on this his life and worked for him. joan had that. i think she escaped into the spotlight. maybe more than is healthy or plest. she -- pleasant. she sure did a hell of a job. i got orchids from her six months ago. i had come to her defense at a

public protest about jokes she had done about supposedly subjects you don't joke about, like the holocaust and other things. i wrote "i'm on joan's side in this", to the people that made these remarks in a magazine. it will be great news to many that there are subjects that you can't do humour about, it will be news to mark twain, johnny chapman, steven colbert - did i say chaplain - it's a silly argument. >> some criticized her for being too harsh. she argued she was talking about the truth. despite what you said about intelligence on the johnny carson show, you cannot succeed with the biting humour she had unless you are tremendously intelligent. >> yes. i guess there aren't many dumb b

bbeta cappa's, majoring in anthroughingy. she was no one's fool. she was harsh, and hurt people's feelings - like elizabeth taylor. >> so what, she was dealing in comedy. she said "i am what i am", she gave as good as she got when criticized. i was all for her in that regard. >> she managed to appeal to all generations. my kids loved her on "fashion police", and i have to hope that she gets her wish, what she wrote in her book, about her funeral, that she was a fan blowing her hair, so she looks like beyonce, and wants a hollywood blow out and wants merrill streep crying in five different accent. thank you for joining us. >> it should be emphasised that

there was a warm sweet person under, that surprised many who met her. she was - she was a good kid underneath it all. >> thank you. good to see you. >> coming up. we will check in with professor dumpster. the university professor spending the last six months living in a dumpster to prove we could all live with less. first, a big anniversary for atms, going from banks allowing customers removing small amounts using the honour system, to replacing tellers at some banks.

today's data dive makes a stop at the atm because 45 years ago this week america's first automated teller premiered. it was premiered as the docu-teller, marking the first use of magnetically coated cards to withdraw cash out the use of a bechteler. in the sign of a different time banks relied on an honour system, imposing $150 on withdrawals. the first atms were not networked to the latest information on people's accounts. the machines couldn't know if people took out more money than they had in their accounts. it was only good for withdrawals. two years later, the total

teller added deposits, account balances and funny transfers. today, some sell lottery tickets and postage stamps. atms are, again, proof that necessity is the mother of invention. don, the man credited with developing the model most use, came up with the idea waiting in line at a bank. a tms evolutionized the industry, giving us access to cash. 6.2 million atms are operating around the world. a new one is in stock every 5 minutes. atms, and their evolution on smartphones come at the expense of tellers. p&c bank and barclays are among a group of major banks saying they'll get rid of most or all of their bank tellers as an increasing number of bankers are doing banking at atms or online.

most americans don't remember a time you had to wait in line. coming up, we check back in with a university professor who has now been living in a duxster six months into the projects.

have you ever wanted to give it all away and live a simpler life. just how simple would you be willing to go. would you live in a dumpster. that is what one environmental science professor did, calling himself professor dumpster. jeff wilson lived in a tiny 36 square foot home since february. his goal to prove people could live with 1% of energy, water and waste of the average american. joining us again, six months

after joining us after moving into the dumpster, is a biological professor, dean of the university college, joining us from austin texas. good to see you. i need to know how you survive. i know the temperatures hit more than 120 degrees inside the dumpsters. >> that's right. actually, up north of 130, and i can tell you what, that airconditioning came at about the rite right time, that 6-month point. >> you added electricity, running water. you call it a studio dumpster. how will you handle a bathroom in that kind of space. >> right. so it is an iter active experiment. that's the next thing we need. we'll figure a way to expand the dumpster and strap this rite

outside of it. -- right outside of it. >> you'll strap it outside. you won't have anything inside the room then? >> right. so there's going to be a few things, things that will be a challenge to get inside the dumpster. they are the shower and the toilet. the thing that i miss the most is the toilet. middle of the night, 30 second sprints are, you know, not anybody's idea of a good time. now that you are plugging in the water, the electricity, are you confident that you can keep to the 1% goal that you use 1% of the water, energy and waste of an average american? >> we are confident. it is a stretch goal, sort of an audacious goal. at this point, we are going to install some normal equipment. we have a good old home depot airconditioner, we are measuring

energy. in the final phase, the uber dumpster, when we move the solar, showerheads, l.e.d. lights. >> how much time are you spending in there. are you sleeping most nights? >> i'm in there five nights out of the week. there's a long list of students that would like to stay in the studio apartment now that it's decked out with things like a dream catcher and has an airconditioner. we give them that experience of living on a bit less, one or two nights a week. >> there's an educational aspect. not only are they siding up on spending the night in there. you are bringing educational things, you have a weather station there. >> that's right. we have a weather station. actually, i checked the weather three minutes ago. it was 97.4 degrees in the dumpster. i have the ac off.

they'll test different types of insulation materials, monitoring how much energy that takes to cool and heat the dumpster. right now it's an empty tin can. >> when we last spoke you were concerned about your girlfriend and her reaction to you living in the dumpster. is she still with you? >> as far as i can tell, she's still here. she's not spending nights in the dumpster, but is still around. >> i know your parents, you went to harvard, i can only imagine what they think of you living in a dumpster much professor dumpster, thanks for being here. we'll talk to you soon. friday, from george washington to woodstock - we look at political extremists on all sides of american politics. and documentarian alex gibney joins us with a look at american

youth through their own eyes called "edge of 18." the conversation continues on the website aljazeera.com/considerthis. you can find us on twitter or tweet me. see you next time. . >> hello everybody. this is al jazeera america. i'm david shuster in new york. taking aim, u.s. air strikes target top officials as the group aims for new territory. search and recovery - the texas country where hundreds of migrants have died. volunteers helping families find lost ones. why some americans want to avoid common core uc