That assumes the product owner is developing what's needed - not they shiny new feature he was able to sell to the product budget holder.
Also assumes that the people deploying/using the software are involved in the Agile process.
i.e. Product may be developed in an Agile way, but if product just releases a new version every year, that emerges from a black-box, then it really doesn't matter what methodology was followed.

and really wasn't complaining even about the groups - more just the environment they've all been put in (apart from marketing, who should all be shot... as long as they keep selling the stuff that pays my salary... OK, I'll give some of them a pass..).
The guy leading the scrum team, who tells me he sees the issue and isn't going to fix it, isn't personally being a bastard. Actually, he's probably a pretty good leader, protecting his team from my random requests, leading to team late nights, leading to tester queries and defects all based around something he wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place.
It has to come top down. At one end there's a happy customer throwing money at us for our flexible "can-do" attitude - and it's just making sure that money and accompanying 'kudos' attaches itself to everybody in the chain. If you've got hard walls between depts in that chain, each one just seems to want to shaft the ones on either side of it - skim off as much as they can as it goes from the customer to dev. So, when it reaches dev finally they look at the risk/reward and (rightly) determine it's not worth the effort - so nobody benefits.

My counter-view (sitting, between product and customer).
Product have made something that's not quite right. We ask them to fix it. They don't want to, as they're adding the latest shiny new feature instead.
This makes sense to them, shiney got given budget, fixing something would mean them admitting they screwed up before and there'll be a teensy bit less shiny/budget. They don't like doing that.
So, I have to fix it. I can't charge the customer more, I can't internally pay product less, so I just got myself some additional work.
I can then repeat this process for each customer - or hope that product pick up the fix/feature and integrate it.
This second favoured option whilst easiest for me, sticks in the craw a bit as it's not really motivating product to actually make what we need - throw something out the door, and it'll get fixed if we missed anything important.
Now, obviously you get to point when you lose your rag a bit - and tell the customer it's all borked, tell them to escalate it, and sit back as product fixes product. This can only be used rarely, too often and the customer twigs it's all messed up internally.

A better alternative, and something we seem to be moving towards, is to slice the company the other way - Take chunks of sales, site, delivery, support, product to create a 'functional slice' through all of them. Common purpose, common(ish) pot of money - "We" have a problem, "We" need to fix, or our whole slice is screwed (and the multi-VP shit will rain down equally on all of us).
Above still isn't perfect (more services, than product) but even as a small step, if you get product closer to the customer it improves. Not just people feel more involved in actually providing a solution, but helps shape the product roadmap - These aren't just new "Shiny Features" - They're "A Shiny feature we know if we add to the product, has landed us all another million dollars in the next release".
I guess if I had to sum it up, it's just being more open and then trying to align all the interests. People want to do a good job, but asking them to sacrifice themselves to do something they'll never be rewarded for just demeans and pisses them off, which leads to resentment, which leads to the internal barriers, fiefdoms and all the rest.

I seem to originally recall when he was first arrested, that he was charged with actually having people killed.
This having been proudly announced before they actually knew who these people were, had any bodies, just ridiculously, laughable over-charging (and clearly designed to bias whatever came next).
I'm interest to see where this all goes - but so far it appears to be utter bollocks and lies (now) from both sides.

He didn't.

Having oil traded in dollars seems to be working out reasonably well for some.

Or maybe it isn't.
Just personally I'd liked the idea of the defendant stepping up, admitting running the whole thing, and saying he'd arranged a x many hundred thousand/million drug deals where nobody got hurt, nobody was coerced and to possibly point out that the major issue with narcotics is merely how they're handled, rather than their eternal existence and the last century's completely useless attempts at prohibition.
Whoever ran SR, they'll forever have my admiration for what they did and voluntarily banning the sale of items that certain governments to this day refuse to consider as 'harmful'.
The Charlie Hebdo incident that occurred last week. Would this be more, or less likely to have occurred if we lived under the rules of the USA or Silk Road?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/09/charlie-hebdo-manhunt-kouachi-terrorist-links-live-updates

But that's just a sentiment.
Once you're in their jaws, I suspect that your feelings may vary - and not as if any of us are going to reward her for towing the unified line
Actually, that's maybe the solution - you cough up your own cash to reward those that "say no to extortion" - It's not a massive leap, the majority of our governments already do this with our taxes already. Sure, it costs more in the long run (those SAS/SEAL raids where everybody ends up dead and poorer) - but it's nice to take a principled stand in the abstract (when your loved one isn't going to die as a hostage, nor as a soldier sent to rescue them).
The French - they mainly just seem to pay up, and walk away with their hostages unharmed.
Now I'm sure there may be some objections to this (I've got some myself) - but our governments seem to have managed to overlook their scruples and the urge to teach lessons when a few banks asked for a bit of cash (or we'd have all descended into anarchy, seemingly).
My point, I'm not sure. It's vaguely around the point that we don't 'pay when extorted' - and yet we all pretty much do. What's interesting is the type of extortion your government buckles and pays for.

From the "I commonly work in a clean-room (CR.)" I knew we were onto a winner here.

What you actually want to do is not put your phone on the 'inside' of your "CR" gear.

If that's not an option, then I suspect neither is farting around with a wrist-computer.

Being serious. I'm a Pebble user and the main service it provides is putting your phone notifications on your wrist - it lets you break the pavlovian response of looking at your phone everytime it goes 'buzz'
However, it pretty much assumes that when you glance at your wrist and determine it's important, you get out your phone to resolve whatever.
Depending on your watch of choice, your interaction scope may vary - but they all assume if you need to offer a proper response to whatever, you get out your phone - a smartwatch isn't for you sir.

It doesn't like knowing my phone is rooted - but then slap on Root Cloak, and it happily rolls over and lets me tickle it's underside.
I think this might be my main annoyance - ridiculously intrusive, and yet pretty dumb.

You misunderstand.
Worx doesn't actually *give* you any functionality - e.g. I just use my regular mail program to connect to exchange, attach files etc etc. All Worx does, is tell my employer my handset's allowed to use exchange.
I'm guessing it can probably be used in a slightly more intrusive way to 'brand' my handset (install corporate wallpaper, stick corporate apps of choice on the handset etc) - but..

Have a look what Citrix Worx asks for (certifier of your phone, so you can look at your work email). Device & app history
retrieve running apps
read sensitive log data
Mobile data settings
change/intercept network settings and traffic
Location
precise location (GPS and network-based)
Photos / Media / Files
modify or delete the contents of your USB storage
test access to protected storage
Camera / Microphone
record audio
Wi-Fi connection information
view Wi-Fi connections
Device ID & call information
read phone status and identity
Other
press keys and control buttons
read frame buffer
close other apps
update component usage statistics
force-stop other apps
modify secure system settings
view network connections
connect and disconnect from Wi-Fi
full network access
run at startup
read battery statistics
control vibration
close other apps
set wallpaper
install shortcuts
uninstall shortcuts
modify system settings
pair with Bluetooth devices
draw over other apps

I suspect some numpty within Disney has just walked away with a somewhat cheap-looking 'patent plaque'

The point of a search engine, to the user, is to give them what they were looking for.
Anything that detracts from this ideal, makes it a 'bad search engine'

If they'd got their head screwed on, in addition to hiding copyright infringing material, they'd have also extended the patent to remove anything that was sold by a Disney competitor (surely users contributing to the coffers of a rival, is much worse than contributing to nobody).
Oh - but then it might have been noticed that they've just patented their own app-store..

And the results in most IT offices being a f'in sausage-fest.
Whilst I have no aptitude for HR or marketing, I'd urge any undecided young person out there to fully consider.