Woot! My very first SVG icons.

Unfortunately, Posterous can't handle SVG conversion (lol). So if you wanna see the SVGs, poke meeeeee.

Icons inside the applications themselves should be simpler and more graphic rather than realistic, like so:

Update:
BLAH! So it turns out WPF can't easily handle raster images, so the in-application icons cannot be the style shown above. The style shown above requires pixel art...which is, by nature, raster.

I also tried redoing a raster in pixel style (eg. 1x1px squares...) but that still doesn't look good, and apparently takes quite a bit of processing power to render.

Vector vs Raster Icons at Small Sizes (original file cabinet icon)

More details on why this happens can be found in this great article. There are lots of comments from what I presume are non-pixel-art-creators that still manage to miss the point. Since comments aren't working there anymore (lol the post IS 7 years old...), here's the point that the comments in the article miss...

Pixel Art Requires a New Level of Abstraction
This is something that doesn't seem to have been covered in the comments, that anyone who does pixel art at the tiny sizes it's ideally suited to knows.

When you go to 48x48 and below, the level of abstraction required to make an icon APPEAR like something to the naked human eye entirely changes the way an icon has to be designed.

Simply shrinking a detailed high resolution vector into 48x48 and lower doesn't work because even if the vectors were somehow able to magically keep their detail and proportion, our eyes start to interpret things differently at those sizes and below.

Tiny sizes demand visual abstraction that does not scale, and pixel art is the way to go with that. Sure, you could draw it in vectors, pixel-art style, a 1x1px block at a time, but it would take a quite a bit of processing power to render, and still doesn't look as good (see above).

Guess I'll Make 'Em Fancy Vectors
Sooo... in-app icons will have to be fancy and realistic too. Oh well, at least there aren't many of them. At least, I'm planning them not to be. Not too fond of icons inside applications that scream LOOK AT MEEEEEE.

Here's a LOOOKATMEEEE icons so far. ._.

Final 'now-that-I-can't-use-pixel-art' file cabinet icon.

Unusual And Alternative Prosthetic Limbs Designed To Stand Out

I've posted something similar before, but where the other one was elegant, this is quirky. Both are wonderfully crafted, and I think it's beautiful, needed work - changing a source of potential social awkwardness to a unique and lovely talking point and source of pride.

Can't help wondering what it would have been like if scoliosis braces like this had been available in my day.

Stuff I learned in design school (that they never taught me)

Enemies can be unwittingly helpful
So someone hates you and is being turdy to you, trying to tear you down in front of the class, and your lecturers, in the hope of getting better grades. That doesn't mean you don't listen to them closely and analyse what they've said. Sometimes a grain of truth in it that helps you, even if it burrrrns it burrrrrns. Learning to find those grains of truth is a skill in and of itself.

Someone being better at something than you are, doesn't make you any less good at it
However, it still makes you less desirable in the job market, should you be in direct competition with one another.

Serve your client, not your ego
You may love sword and sorcery, but that doesn't mean you put sword and sorcery into every freaking thing you do. Especially not stuff that has nothing at all to do with it, and whose target market thinks the whole S&S thing is utterly stupid.

Keep your principles, change your designs
Almost, but not quite, the same as the above about serving your client.

...and of course, there's the last thing I only learned when I went out to work.

Sometimes people pay you for the privilege of overriding your professional advice
If you fail to convince them after doing your best to make them understand, and if you leave paper trails (when needed), you've earned the money.

This author should really go Lorem Ipsum herself.

For those who would argue that it's impossible to evaluate designs without real content, let me ask this: why then, is it okay to evaluate content out of context of the designs? To review copy decks devoid of color, typography, layout, and styling means that readers are missing out on the important signals communicated by design-cues to priority, weight, and hierarchy of information, but also emotional and aesthetic appeal. If content strategists want to ask designers to stop using Lorem Ipsum, maybe designers should insist that content strategists add style sheets to their copy decks that match the proposed design direction.
via uie.com; emphasis mine

Why?

Because, you utter failure as both designer and writer, good writing should be powerful even if it's untidily but legibly written on 100 sheets of onionskin.

P.S. I agree that Lorem Ipsum can be used in the correct context, and is a valid tool. But the paragraph above is an incredibly annoying straw man argument. Oh, and she's also missed that design supports content; the reverse is called art.

Browse vs. Search: Which Deserves to Go?

While every engineer may find Search easy and efficient, that is not the experience of most people under many conditions, including those encountered by the users of the systems Craig has referenced—Contacts, iOS, and Lion. Learning to type into a box is easy. Memorizing the names of perhaps several hundred apps so you know what to type into the box, not so easy. Unless you are an engineer.
 Graphic designers, left unchecked and unschooled, are likely to aim for maximum visual simplicity at the expense of both learnability and usability. Such interfaces require users to discover new capabilities by clicking around and seeing what happens. Users don't do that. 

So much good stuff in here! The second quote about graphic designers, in particular, sounds like what I spent the first 3+ years when I started working in the digital space arguing against, usually on the losing side.