Naming, be it for variables, methods or classes should be as precise as possible and describe what is meant as complete as possible. Where applicable use domain-specific language. And try to find the shortest possible description - overly long names make for code that is hard to read (CTheStuffThatCanBeFoundInBellyButtons looks awkward; CNavelFluff is much better).

Be as verbose as you can, especially for public methods. Verbosity not only makes your code easier to read and to understand, it also is a useful tool to eliminate boolean arguments, which otherwise would have to be looked up in the documentation by whoever tries to analyze what the code does.
Example: in some class you have the methods writeToDisk() and writeToDisk(bool makebackup). All writeToDisk() does is call writeToDisk(false); to avoid code duplication all the logic resides in writeToDisk(bool makebackup).
Now think about how the code will look like at the place where the class is used (assuming you want to make a backup): [...] myReport.writeToDisk(true); [...]. You can not, just by looking at the code, tell what writeToDisk is supposed to do. Instead, you will have to find the documentation and then look up what setting the boolean argument to true means for the behaviour.
But it is easy to fix this: make writeToDisk(bool makebackup) private and expose the behaviour by the two more verbose public methods writeToDiskWithoutBackup() and writeToDiskWithBackup(). You might end up with one method more than would be strictly necessary, but legibility is greatly improved.

No matter what language you choose to use when naming your variables, methods and classes, choose method names that tell a story. E.g.: instead of double price = extractPrice(webpage); be more verbose and use double price = extractSharePriceFrom(webpage);

BTW, in that MMORPG where the BFG is always hidden in the same spot... if you can understand that small fragment you have probably some experience with Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games and you probably have played a game as well where the most sought-after weapon is a Big F***ing Gun. If not you might have wondered what I was talking about.
And that's the problem with acronyms (and usually with abbreviations as well): they are highly domain specific, and if your knowledge of that domain is somewhat lacking then you need to look them up. But where? You can call yourself lucky if the source you are looking at came with some sort of documentation; to expect a glossary as well would be pushing it somewhat.
Which leads us to the question: should we use acronyms or abbreviations in source code? And the answer is: it depends. An "i" instead of "index" in loops is pretty much industry standard since the days when Fortran first saw the light of day; using "r" and "c" in nested loops that work on a table is not, but might be understood in the context of rows and cells.
Which gives us a hint: in a restricted context more is permissible than in a larger or even global scope, and the more generally accepted an abbreviation or acronym is, the more prermissible it is to use it. You may instantiate CPlantNameList as "pnl" if "pnl" is only used in the next few lines, but don't declare a member attribute in that way: CPlantNameList mPNL; is not a good idea. Declaring an argument that represents a connection as "con" as in getWebPage(string url, CWebConnection con) is ok (methods shouldn't cover too many lines anyway) but again, declaring a member attribute CWebConnection mCon; is not.

Another problem that arises with acronyms is consistency. There are three separate issues here, and I have come across two of them in real life. Much to my chagrin as I may add:

• camel-casing vs. full capitalization in acronyms
• short form mixed with long form
• don't override acronyms in mixed language domain sources

The first issue deals with how acronyms are written. Let us take the above example but let us use a pointer and indicate this fact with the letter "p" prepended: CPlantNameList* pPNL;. Or should that be CPlantNameList* pPnl;? There is room for debate here, since in the camel-casing naming convention normaly only the first letter of each word is uppercased. But is an acronym a word in itself? I have come across the problem only once in some book or article, and there the preferred notation was to keep acronyms uppercased because it reflects their real life usage. E.g.: make it mSSLConnection and not mSslConnection. It is up to you to decide, but whatever your decision is: stick to it and don't mix the two styles! I have come across this issue with XML tags and my first reaction was: isn't this a typo? Sadly enough, it wasn't.
The second issue is closely related to the first and deals with using the acronym or using the long form. Again, the rule here should be: don't mix the styles. Don't have two fields like mDC and mAlternatingCurrent in the same class. Be consistent, at least within the domain: double mDC; double mAC; CPlantNameList mPlantNameList; is fine, since a list of plant names does not belong to the language domain of electrical engineering.
I mention this because I have encountered such a mix-up in real life as well. At that time I wanted to address some fields in a dataset and I needed the column name for that. The column name was longform, the getter of the corresponding class was shortform, and not only that, it was also the shortform of the word in a different language! Code like that could come straight out of [1].
The third issue is about ambiguity. In a web-programming context XML usually stands for "eXtended Markup Language". You may have a class named CChristmasMailingList in that context as well, but please don't refer to it as e.g. myXML. Not only is this a recipie for some nasty bugs, it might also make your code unmaintainable (at least in a restricted timeframe) by pretty much everybody else (and that includes you in two years time).