Yes:

CDMA model A1429*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 3, 5, 13, 25)

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html

They just don't work on all LTE bands.

Ok, I did miss this:

The CDMA phone, however, is more of a global device. It supports the same three LTE bands as the non-U.S. GSM phone, as well as the two main bands used by U.S. carriers Verizon and Sprint. Another benefit to the CDMA phone is that it supports GSM/EDGE radio frequencies, while the GSM phones do not support CDMA frequencies. Unfortunately, that GSM support is limited to international use for stateside customers. What is oddly missing from all three phones is LTE support for a large portion of Western Europe, which uses LTE Band 7.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-lte-model/

And:

CDMA model A1429*: CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1900, 2100 MHz); UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); LTE (Bands 1, 3, 5, 13, 25)

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html

I actually looked into that the other day but I guess I missed that portion. Sorry for adding to the confusion...

Something doesn't make sense here. My understanding was that while the iPhone 4S had a universal radio (CDMA and GSM), there are different iPhone 5 models for different networks (CDMA and GSM). And while they all support LTE, they support different frequencies:

Where the iPhone 4S was a dual GSM/CDMA device, meaning one model for all carriers, the LTE-enabled iPhone 5 comes in two separate GSM models and one CDMA model. This means that consumers will have fewer choices when switching carriers, and that LTE access will be limited when traveling abroad.

Since carriers utilize different radio frequencies (also known as frequency bands) for LTE service, Apple has had to diversify its iPhone 5 portfolio. This largely has to do with the fact that 4G LTE is still in the early stages of development, compared to more mature networks like 2G and 3G. It’s a messy situation that Android handset makers like Samsung and HTC have been dealing with when it comes to their 4G LTE devices. For example, the Samsung Galaxy SIII comes in nine model variants, five of which are specific to North American carriers.

The three iPhone 5 models include: GSM model A1428 that supports LTE Bands 4 and 17; GSM model A1429 that supports LTE Bands 1, 3, and 5; and CDMA model A1429 that supports LTE Bands 1, 3, 5, 13, and 25.

In layman’s terms, this means an iPhone 5 user who wanted to jump from, say, AT&T to Verizon or vice versa, would have to buy a new handset, since AT&T runs a GSM network and Verizon is CDMA. And where owners of GSM handsets previously enjoyed wide compatibility with foreign networks, LTE fragmentation means that AT&T customers using an iPhone 5 in Europe, for example, won’t be able to take advantage of LTE speeds while abroad and will instead get kicked down to the 3G network.

More at the link:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/iphone5-lte-model/

Is the Wired story incorrect? Is there more to this? Or is "able to connect to any GSM network" totally bogus?

More details here, including this blurb from Verizon:

UPDATE: Verizon got back to us, and said "Verizon Wireless plans to enable global LTE roaming on the iPhone 5 in the future. As there are many LTE frequencies currently being deployed around the world, Verizon will be surveying which markets line up best with the frequencies available in our version of the iPhone 5."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/want-global-lte-roaming-on-iphone-5-dont-buy-it-from-att/

Perhaps this should read "able to connect to any LTE network that runs on compatible frequencies"?

I haven't been following the Hudson/Jenkins saga *that* closely, but it was my understanding that most of the developers that had been working on Hudson had moved over to Jenkins and that Hudson itself had basically been left behind in the dust. Even if Hudson gets moved to the EF, will anybody care?

Already posted earlier today:

http://slashdot.org/story/10/10/27/1437252/Microsoft-Is-a-Dying-Consumer-Brand

Les didn't invent multitrack recording. He was probably the first to record that way, but Ampex invented it.

Mod parent way up.

Les Paul was a great talent, but it was in fact Ross Snyder at Ampex who came up with the idea of Sel-Sync (recording in sync with previously recorded tracks), and it was Ampex engineers such as Mort Fujii who actually made it work. Multiple tracks on the same tape already existed, but the ability to record multiple passes in sync with each other did not.

Les did end up paying $10,000 for that machine though!

You also need to remember that early recordings tend to get gummy. The way this is fixed is to bake the tape. You then get ONE shot at recovering the data from it, after that the tape is destroyed. I don't know if they needed to bake the masters, the article doesn't say. If they did, though, then there is nothing you can go back to.

No, that isn't true at all. First off, tapes from 1969 shouldn't need to be baked. It was when formulations changed in the mid '70s that it became a problem. I've heard that tapes from the early '50s usually play without any problems. Second, baking tapes doesn't destroy them. While there are apparently arguments that baking degrades the tape somewhat, some audio engineers have indicated they've baked tapes over and over to no ill effect. It *is* true, however, that baking only buys you so much time before you have to bake again. Not a huge problem, though.