I interviewed Glenn Close for Palm Springs Life magazine about her just-released movie “Albert Nobbs.” Close received a best-actress Oscar nomination, while co-star Janet McTeer was nominated for best-supporting actress. Both gave strong performances in the movie.

Close, who won a Career Achievement Award at this year’s Palm Springs International Film Festival earlier this month, had been hoping to play the “Albert Nobbs” role since playing the part on stage at the Manhattan Theater Club in 1982.

Close was generous with her time for the interview, which I may post on this blog next month. A thank you to Palm Springs Life editor-in-chief Steven Biller for reaching out to me for this opportunity.

Click here to read the story.

Foursquare founder Dennis Crowley’s plan is to do for places and experiences, what Amazon has done for books, and Netflix has done for movies. Crowley calls Foursquare a “recommendation engine.” I called it an “anticipation engine” when I caught up with Crowley at the at this month’s 140 Characters Conference in New York City. I asked him what changes are coming that users don’t expect? Will Foursquare evolve in ways that we’re not yet imagining? Watch the 140-second interview to hear what he said.

“You want to make sure everything you tweet is accurate, honest and useful,” Curry said in an interview. “I’m held to a very high standard, and you need to meet that.”

Curry sets a high-standard each day as host of as NBC’s “Today” show, and when the cameras are off, she maintains her journalism standards when she sends updates on Twitter.

“I don’t want to let people down,” she said. “It’s a lot of responsibility.”

Two years ago at the 140 Characters Conference in New York City, Curry emerged as a social media star because she explained how seriously she approaches each tweet. That won the respect of the crowd and her Twitter following quickly grew from 40,000 to over one million. Curry’s interview with HiAnthony.com took place at last year’s #140conf, as it’s known on Twitter. She will speak again at this year’s 140 Characters Conference, which kicks off June 15 at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.

Twitter is changing, Curry said, comparing it to the evolution of transportation. “When have generations been able to expereince something, knowing that they’re at the ground stage of something? It’s a rare experience.”

NEW YORK — Jeff Pulver took a few minutes to discuss what to expect at this year’s 140 Characters Conference: New York City. It’s the second annual conference, referred to as #140conf on Twitter. The #140conf tag has been used every day on Twitter since the conference a year ago, Pulver said. Last year’s conference helped propel NBC News journalist Ann Curry (@AnnCurry) from 40,000 followers to over 1 jmillion and also featured Wine Library TV’s Gary Vaynerchuk (@garyvee). Both Curry and Vaynerchuk are speaking again at this year’s conference. Also speaking at the conference, on April 20 and 21 at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump), Donny Deutsch (@Donny_Deutsch) and MC Hammer (@MCHammer).

“What we’re really looking at is the effects of the real-time Internet on both business and we the people ,” Pulver said during a recent interview at the Roger Smith Hotel (@RSHotel).

“We will be looking at the Haiti disaster,” and topics including media, fashion, music and sports. “The people define the moment,” said Pulver, who runs the conference and is also Vonage’s original founder. “It’s about serendipity. It’s about life.”

I attended last year’s 140 Characters Conference: New York City and connected with many folks there. The interaction at the conference helped me to become more active on Twitter. By the way, Pulver said, March 5 is the last day to get into the conference for $100 for both days. As of March 6, it goes up to $140 for both days. I’ll put the conference registration link here and the schedule link here, because I believe it’s well worth the investment.

Here’s a young man, all of 35, who runs a company that makes no money, telling an old man, 78, who runs companies that have made billions, that he is wrong. But while it’s easy to dismiss Stone’s comments as youthful bravado, I think he’s giving Murdoch some valuable advice.

With gadgets like the Apple (AAPL) iPhone becoming more common, media content is increasingly ubiquitous. And as much as readers may value a good story written by a Wall Street Journal reporter, only a minority is willing to pay for it. That’s the new media reality and the basis of Stone’s criticism.

Murdoch may be counting on people adopting new technology platforms — like newspapers on pocket-sized, flexible plastic that refresh in real-time — slowly, giving him more time to milk existing audiences and infrastructure. But while there will likely always be some readers willing to pay for content, what Stone is saying is that so much information will be available for free that Murdoch will ultimately lose the battle between his pay-for-news and free, advertiser-supported news.

Instead, News Corp. (NWS) “should be looking at this as an opportunity to try something radically different and find out a way to make a ton of money from being radically open rather than some money from being ridiculously closed,” Stone told an audience at an event organized by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts in London, the BBC reported Thursday.

It’s solid advice from Stone, who is figuring out how to turn Twitter into a money-making platform. Murdoch has now admitted some anxiety about the changing media landscape, saying, “We find ourselves in the midst of an information revolution that is both exciting and unsettling.” His comments, reported by Dow Jones Newswires, came in videotaped remarks Thursday.

Maybe Murdoch is right to charge for what he can and make money where he can get it from his news content. But I don’t think so. Demand for free content will eventually overwhelm the supply of people willing to pay for it.

But the decision could open the door to a litany of problems. Among the potential issues: Who has the right to determine if a site is memorialized? What if the husband memorializes his wife on Facebook but the wife’s parents think that such a move is in poor taste — can the page then be taken down?

Facebook’s Chimene Stewart said in an email, “We defer to the wishes of the family member who requested the account be memorialized.” That means as long as one person wants it, Facebook will memorialize the deceased person’s page. Down the road, I wouldn’t be surprised if that leads to lawsuits to have a memorialized page removed.

There could be other problems as well. Facebook’s Max Kelly, a close friend of the Facebook employee who was killed, explained in a note to users on October 26 that “When an account is memorialized, we also set privacy so that only confirmed friends can see the profile or locate it in search.”

Confirmed friends means those who were Facebook friends with the Facebook user before he died. Facebook says it will prevent anyone from logging onto a deceased person’s account after the user’s death but it will allow friends and family to leave posts on the profile wall in remembrance.

But what happens if, for example, a Chicago firefighter dies after saving lives and folks want to show their respects by posting on the firefighter’s Facebook page? Only those linked to him before his death could leave a note. In the future, will people leave instructions in their wills about whether they wish to be remembered on Facebook?

Another problem the company faces is advertising. Currently, besides memories of the deceased’s life, the memorial pages also contain advertisements. That could easily be considered in poor taste. But what if Facebook were to yank the ads on those pages? Then the company would take a financial hit and would be left with memorial pages that generate little to no revenue.

Perhaps Facebook would do better to stick with the living. “There are already sites that memorialize people,” says Andrew Hazen, founder and CEO of Prime Visibility, which helps boost online exposure for individuals or companies. “What’s intriguing to me is that Facebook is memorializing what people have built themselves. But who will contact Facebook? People will die and Facebook will have no idea, because it won’t be a priority to contact Facebook. God forbid my spouse passes on, the last thing I’m doing is notifying Facebook that she is no longer alive. I suspect this won’t be policed or executed very well.”

Facebook, for its part, believes that providing the memorial pages of its users outweighs any potential problems. But if the company ends up pulling ads and dealing with lawsuits from irate relatives, it may soon be lamenting not the death of its users, but the demise of its memorial pages.

The answer to the first two questions is simple: because Twitter is used to connect with people. Twitter isn’t a magic trick. The magic happens once you’ve used it for awhile. At some point, Twitter users find that opportunities appear, doors open and connections happen — just as they do if you join a church group, a sports team or a networking association. The longer you Tweet and the more involved you become, the wider the tentacles reach.

“What Twitter really represents for some people is legacy,” says Jeff Pulver, who co-founded Vonage and hosts Twitter conferences in cities including Los Angeles, New York and Tel Aviv. “Words, ideas, thoughts are small postcards that people can send to themselves in the future because now there’s a digital trail as to who said what, when and where.”

From that point of view, Twitter is a timeless platform containing a trail of expressions, leaving a path that may help people in the future discover how and why we got there.

What about that third question: Will Twitter survive for five years? That depends on whether Twitter’s co-founders can turn this thought-catching-machine into an cash-creating engine. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said in July that Twitter will make money this year and “will continue to add ways to make it more valuable.” If Twitter proves to be profitable, it will likely stick around for years to come. If not, no matter how much folks enjoy using the service, it won’t.

Part of why Twitter works is the charm of its140-character limitation. It forces users to communicate their thoughts succinctly and clearly, while doing it in written form. It doesn’t always work, and when it doesn’t, it can cause misunderstanding and confusion, or worse, no response. (Or even worse, it can be used for no good at all, such as celebrity death hoaxes.) The quality of Twitter relies on the quality of the connections happening on the site.

“It helps people more transparently connect with each other, and companies to more cleanly connect with the customers,” says Dr. Pamela Rutledge, director of Boston-based Media Psychology Research Center. “If people aren’t achieving a quality relationship with others online, they wouldn’t use it, and it wouldn’t work.” Peggy White, publisher of Double X, a webzine spin-off from Slate that focuses on women’s issues, says Twitter and social networking work because they’re improving the quality of relationships and communication both online and off.

In short, Twitter gives people a chance to control their message in a short burst. Once the message is out there, it may take a path not intended by the originator. The beauty of the service is if you let go of controlling the message, you typically discover better or more useful information. It all depends on the users who send Tweets.

“People discover their voice matters,” Pulver says. “When you have a platform that aggregates people making statements, and these statements move to the top in a democratic fashion, that moves markets.”

Love it, hate it or disregard it, that’s why Twitter matters.

How about President Barack Obama? Will he be less likely to speak his mind in public after ABC News reporters used Twitter to spread his off-the-record comment about Kanye West acting like a “jackass” on MTV’s video music awards show? TMZ.com, owned by DailyFinance’s parent company AOL, then published audio and video of those comments. Will such incidents cause celebrities and non-celebrities to be more on guard for fear that their every move may be made public via social media?

Twitter recently redesigned its homepage to show off its real-time search, while Google is working on caffeine, a souped up version of its search engine, which is sporting faster and more relevant search results. Facebook may soon be able to top both products from Google and Twitter, if they successfully blend FriendFeed’s real-time search features.

A core reason Facebook bought FriendFeed is for its talent, including ex-Google (GOOG) engineers, and its ability to help with real-time search. Many, including blogger and FriendFeed advocate Robert Scoble, would argue that FriendFeed does Twitter better than Twitter. Moreover, they bought it for a fraction of what they could have paid for Twitter. All Things Digital’s Kara Swisher wrote that Facebook paid $50 million for Mountain View, California-based FriendFeed and its 12 employees.

“Some might think FriendFeed was a second choice acquisition for Facebook, since the company couldn’t land Twitter last year,” wrote Mashable’s Josh Catone. “But FriendFeed was probably the smarter choice.” Facebook has more than 250 million users. Match that with FriendFeed’s technology and engineers, who are now senior members of the Facebook team, and Twitter has cause to be nervous about a stronger rival in Facebook. The purchase comes as Facebook has been pushing its users to open up their updates to better emulate what Twitter is already doing.

Google has Microsoft (MSFT) and its Bing search engine to content with, plus Twitter’s real-time search engine. Add Facebook to the list of search-wannabes. Search is where the money is online, Google has shown, and the bees are gathering to feast upon the search nest. Searching for what’s next in search? Facebook will soon be part of the Web’s race for a superior real-time search experience.

Other inner teen-voice reactions: So what? Who cares? Saying teens don’t Twitter is like like saying college students don’t have a career or, ‘Gasp, study finds that few under the age of 50 are AARP members.’ It’s a moot point. Teens will use Twitter when they have a reason to use it. Until then, they have MySpace, Facebook and AIM to keep connected with the online world.

Almost all Twitter users have a reason to be there, be it big or small. Because I write about Twitter, folks ask me whether they should join. I tell them, sure, if you have something to say or sell. Most folks on Twitter, in my estimation, are there to promote something. It’s either a product, a service, or themselves.

I’m not being crass. In life, whether we’re cognizant of it or not, we’re always selling ourselves. What comes out of our mouths, put on paper, how we dress, the car we drive, the job we have, the house we live in, all conveys a message about who we are. While not a pleasant thought for many, it’s true.

For those of you who say, I’m not selling myself and I don’t care what people think . . . I get that. That doesn’t mean people aren’t watching. People are assessing, and buying or selling you, based on judgments filtered through their vision of the world. Twitter simply provides an online outlet to what folks are already doing offline.

In my experience, most folks I’ve encountered on Twitter are promoting their product, service, writing or philosophy. Most Tweets can be traced to those four categories. The latter two usually means the person is a published author or wishes to become one, while the first two mean the person hopes you will like them and their entertaining or informative Tweets enough to buy whatever it is they’re selling.

One reason I joined Twitter was to let others there know what I or my colleagues at DailyFinance have written. Otherwise, I use the micro-blogging service to point out articles that other journalists — who I don’t know or work with — are writing. Twitter has also proved useful in making connections and staying in touch with folks I’ve met through Twitter or know professionally. I use Facebook, or send e-mails, to stay in touch with family and longtime pals. I’d argue that most of what many teens post on Facebook would not translate well to Twitter.

The Nielsen study underlines America’s obsession with youth. Since the 1960s, when advertisers came up with the clever (sarcasm) and successful idea of marketing cigarettes to kids, as a culture, we have gravitated toward giving great importance to what teens think is hot, and who or what is the next big thing.

In this case, the next big thing in 2009 turned out to be Twitter. Wait, teens don’t like it? Kids don’t use it? How then has Twitter has become popular? This goes against what has been deemed sacred by marketers and advertisers in the past 50 years. Twitter not being cool with teens is the conclusion of the study by Nielsen’s David Martin and Sue MacDonaold. The translation is, if kids aren’t bonkers about it, it’s doomed to fail.

To be clear: love kids! I have a 2-year-old and another on the way. I have eight nieces and nephews under the age of 25 and we all get along. I’m no curmudgeon. That said, I’m not here to wag a finger and say it’s a shame we don’t value age and wisdom as much as other cultures or the U.S.A. did prior to the 1960s. I’m simply saying how silly it is that we are weighing the opinions of those who have been on earth less than 20 years so heavily.

For example, take Britney Spears, who is 26. How many years ago did she jump the shark? She’s 26 and some marketers might argue, passe. Paris Hilton is 28. Her sex tape is soooo 2004. Julia Roberts and I were born in the same year. She’s 41. ‘Pretty Woman’ came out in 1990, when she was 23. How much more influential is she now than she was 18 years ago? If measured by influence among teens or in the world of pop culture, you might get a negative number on a scale of one to 10.

Teens who don’t use Twitter will use it once they join the workforce or graduate college. They’ll have a reason to use it. They’ll start meeting people and want to keep in touch in a way that doesn’t involve drunk frat party pictures seen on their Facebook or MySpace pages.

So while marketers and, maybe the folks at Twitter, may be alarmed that teens aren’t frantically knocking out 140 Tweets on their iPhones on their way to the movies, I say, give ‘em a few years. Soon they’ll be buying diapers, paying their taxes and credit card bills and Twittering along with the rest of us geriatrics.