I know Inc. stand for incorpration. I would like to know what is the difference between Inc. and Corp. Such as Motorola Inc. Why not Motrola Corp.?\n\nThank you for your answers.
214568
Inc. is the initial of  incorporated. Corp. is the initial of corporation. They are essentially mean the entity is a business corporation. \n\nHowever, as Cutegal78 mentioned, the only difference between than it is depending on the state where incorporated and what ending the incorporates decided to list on the Certificate of Incorporation. \n\nSo I will go with her answer.
467665
Do the diamonds and gemstones bring the opportunity? Or does the brand "Chatham Created Diamonds and Gemstones" bring the opportunity?\n\nIf it's the former, #1 is correct. If it's the latter, #2 is correct. \n\nEither way, "Chatham Created Diamonds and Gemstones" is the subject, and "opportunity" is the object, so it doesn't matter that "opportunity" is singular.
128413
It doesn't stand for anything ... but the story is this: \nWhen ESPN started in 1979, we were the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (thus, ESPN). However, the full name was dropped in February 1985 when the company adopted a new corporate name -- ESPN, Inc. -- and a new logo. Based in Bristol, CT., ESPN is 80 percent owned by ABC, Inc., which is an indirect subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. The Hearst Corporation holds the remaining 20 percent interest in ESPN.
324518
When they release a prouct they *do* just call it one name.  If the same product is then released elsewhere, they have to choose a name that works *there*.  For instance, an American car was named "Nova".  It didn't sell in Spanish-speaking countries.  It took a while for "them" to realize that "no va" is Spanish for "it doesn't go".  Obviously, "they" should have realized before what they were calling it in Spanish!\n\nAs for *why* "they" don't choose a name that works everywhere, it is probably impossible!  There are 6000 languages in the world.  Each has different sounds that speakers cannot pronounce.  If you tried to choose a word that is pronounceable in *every* language, you might be limited to only "t" and "ah" sounds.  Product names would get boring and *long*!  The first product could be named "ta".  The second "tata".  Hope you don't have a lot of different products in the world!\n\nThen, you have to deal with what a word would mean in each of those 6000 languages.  If you pick a word at random, it probably either is a word in some language, or sounds *similar* to one!  Again, it would just be impossible.
624656
I use Desc. quite often. It seems to be the accepted abbreviation with all the vendors I deal with. I do a lot of purchasing for a large corporation.
291657
Its just an abbreviation. \nIts the same thing. \n\nJust our lazy culture trying to make things simple...
74912
Those are product names. \n\n"Legally, trademark names should not be the name of the product itself, only to designate origin of the product. A classic example is Tylenol (R). If you look through a drug store, you will find that the company had registered Tylenol (R) as a trademark. The produce that you purchase, however is not TYLENOL (R), but instead one of many products, such as TYLENOL (R) Cold and Sinus Medicine, or TYLENOL (R) Pain Relievers. In most of these products, the generic name is acetaminophen. This is akin to putting the cultivar name in single quotes beside the marketing name. Trademark names cannot not belong to a particular item or plant, no matter how many times the owner of the trademark tries to convince you otherwise. The two most commonly known examples of trademarks being invalidated because of this are Aspirin and Escalator."
612243
TM-Trade Mark indicating that the name or design is a unique symbol belonging to the proprietor\nR-Registered indicating that the content has been registered under the anme of the said proprietor
395223
To be honest, there isn't much difference between them.\n\nBoth are reputable, reliable companies. \n\nI use a combination of both here at work.\n\nHope this helps!
563761
You name chemical compounds by the elements that it is made of and the way atoms are organized. For example, CO's chemical name is carbon monoxide because it is made of one Carbon and one Oxygen. Oxygen changes its name to oxide everytime you name chemically. We add mo- to oxide because mo- means one. So monoxide means one oxygen. Carbon stays the same. You don't have to add any prefix or suffix to the word.\n\nIf you need any further explaination, e-mail me at nico_guerrero1991@yahoo.com
443575
Case Study, History, and Strategic Analysis of Motorola Inc\n    Uploaded by exonmor on Aug 6, 2005  \n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \nStrategic Analysis of Motorola Inc \n\nThe company that I chose to complete my Strategic Analysis on is Motorola Inc.. Many of us are familiar with Motorola products due to the advent of the cellular phones. Regardless of the carrier of the service, be it Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, many of these companies use a cellular device created by Motorola. However, the company does much more than just producing cell phones. One area that Motorola is trying to focus its current strategic actions in the area of Semiconductors. \n\nHistory/Financial Portfolio Motorola Inc. started with the founding of the company by Paul V.Galvin (figure 1). Paul and his brother Joseph E .Galvin purchased a battery eliminator business from Stewart Storage Battery Company which made battery eliminators used in operating radios using household current in 1928 and created 'Galvin Manufacturing Company'. The company started with five employees and grew gradually. It expanded its business into automobile industry, by introducing auto radios sold to independent auto distributors and automotive dealers. With Galvin Manufacturing Company entering into the auto industry, Paul V. Galvin coined the word Figure 1 'MOTOROLA' linking motion and radio. \n\nDaniel E. Noble joined Galvin Manufacturing Company in 1940 as Director of Research. As a pioneer in FM radio communications and semiconductor technology he originated the first hand-held two-way radio for the Connecticut State Police. He brought his designs to Galvin Manufacturing Company and developed a two-way radio system for the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Because of this, Galvin Manufacturing Company played a significant role in World War II with radio and communications equipment like the "walkie-talkie" (figure 2) and "handie-talkie". \n\nThe first public stock offering occurred in 1947. The company's name was officially changed to Motorola Inc. In 1948 Motorola entered into the television business and with more than 100,000 of these TV sets sold in one year, Motorola catapulted into fourth place in the television industry. During the late 1940's Motorola began to supply auto radios to Ford and Chrysler plants for installation in their automobiles. \n\nMotorola introduced dispatcher radios by taking advantage of expanded allocation of radio frequencies and with aggressive marketing and a reputation for reliable equipment earned a leading role in the industry. Daniel E. Noble launched a Motorola Research and Development facility in Phoenix, Arizona. He anticipated the enormous potential of the newly invented transistor and helped Motorola became one of the world's largest manufacturers of semiconductors. \n\nBy 1950 the net sales of Motorola was $177,104,669 and the number of employees had grown to 9,325. Unfortunately, in 1952, Motorola's first color television was short of success due to technical problems, a high price tag, and the failure of broadcasters to offer an adequate amount of color programming. The product was pulled from the market in 1956. Among some of the innovations for which Motorola is famous are a new radio communications product, a small radio receiver called a "pager" that delivered a radio message selectively to a particular individual carrying the device and the "Motrac" with such low power consumption that radios in automobiles were able to operate without running the car engine Motorola was the first company to use epitaxial method to mass-produce semiconductors. It used low cost techniques in making silicon rectifiers, used in automobile alternators. In place of auto generators, the Automotive Products Division began producing alternators, inaugurating the company's role as a supplier of "under the hood" electronics. Mot
232201
It was originally designed so you could determine what type of website it was by the name.  Now that these are up for sale among the public, .com, .net, and .org have lost that meaning.\n\n.com stands for commercial \n\n.net stands for Network - it was originally used by Internet Service Providers\n\n.org - organization\n\nThere is also .gov (government), .edu (education), and probably a few others I can't think of right now.
307509
It stands for Managed Bean in JMX. I have a pretty good link here for you that does a good job at explaining it... Enjoy!
327101
MOWO just doesn't have the same ring to it as MOBO.  Actually I never heard of MOBO till now--am I missing something?
349062
I think you suggested a good name without realizing it: Focus On Minorities.  You could use the initials F.O.M. for your logo and company letterhead.
506535
On parole (1976) and you spelled it wrong; it's MOTERhead not  motohead. it's ok, luv. I make typos all the time lol :) \n\nmuch luv for the motorhead fan!!!
200500
Are there languages which allow a keyword to be\naccepted as an identifier.\n\nYes, most of the old (incomprehensible) languages did that (like PL/1) i think but i'm not sure, i'm not very used to obsolete languages)....\n\nAh, so modern languages like C are "comprehensible"? Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the submissions to the Obfuscated C contests.\n\nEveryone loves to give PL/I examples like:\n\nIF IF = THEN THEN THEN = ELSE ELSE ELSE = END END\n\n[Actually IF IF = THEN THEN = ELSE; ELSE ELSE = END; END -John]\n\n(which I think is valid PL/I - it's been years, but it's at least close) but that simply proves that you *can* write incomprehensible code in PL/I. So? Show me a language in which you *can't* write incomprehen-sible code.\n\nWhat gets forgotten in all this is the *reason* PL/I didn't reserve its keywords. The PL/I designers knew they were designing what was, for its time, a very large language, which was intended to be useful to very different groups of programmers. History lesson: PL/I and the 360 series were developed at the same time. Originally, PL/I was intended\nto be *the* programming language for the 360. Before the 360, IBM and others in the business had two lines of machines, one for business (for IBM, the 1400 series), one for scientific work (the 709x). Business machines often did decimal arithmetic, had instructions for string manipulation, BCD support, and such, and were programmed in languages like COBOL. Scientific machines usually used binary arithmetic, supported floating point, and were programmed in languages like FORTRAN (US) and Algol (Europe). One fundamental idea in the development 360\nwas to have one line of machines to serve both markets. PL/I was similarly intended to replace both COBOL and PL/I. One of the great comments of the era was that a committee of COBOL and FORTRAN experts sat down to design PL/I - and came up with a language that looked more like Algol than either. \n\nSince PL/I was large and served disparate markets, it was likely that most programmers would only be familiar with a subset of the language. Experience with COBOL - which had a long list of keywords, all reserved  - showed that avoiding all the keywords was a headache. It would be even more so if you had to avoid keywords that only applied to parts of\nthe language you didn't know. So the PL/I designers made the deliberate decision to avoid reserved keywords. Rather than criticizing as incomprehensible a language you know nothing about, take a look at it and find places where the language was made ugly or artificial to avoid reserving keywords. I'll bet you have a lot of trouble doing so.\n\nLest you think that long lists of (reserved) keywords is a feature only of obsolete languages, I suggest you look at the list for C++. I believe C++ reserves more keywords than PL/I had - and perhaps as many as COBOL at its worst did. (Certainly, modern C++ is a larger language the PL/I ever was.)\n\nOver the years, another cost of reserved keywords has become apparent: It becomes difficult to extend the language. You're faced with the Hobson's choice of adding a new readable keyword, thus breaking existing correct code; adding an unreadable keyword that's unlikely to conflict\nwith existing code; or reusing some existing keyword for a new purpose. There's often a bias toward the last of these -and you can see the results in languages like C and C++, where keywords like static and virtual have a variety of only very loosely related meanings.\n\nI suspect the main reason people have generally reserved keywords is two-fold: Language "style" has become fixed, and people want to use lexers and parser generators. Language "style" is hard to pin down, but it's clear that, whatever C "style" is, it's been a big winner - C and\nJava both have C "style". However, C "style" isn't compatible with non- r