That's nice, but which of those are actually commercial? Most of the "products" featured in that article are one-off research or demonstration tools.
I've made something just like that. A few years back I made a "commercial" hazardous gas sensing system using CNT transistors, and installed it in an industrial chemical facility. This was based on technology I'd worked on as a postdoc which had been picked up by a Silicon Valley company and further invested in by DARPA. That's how things are supposed to work, right? It was a great technology demonstration, but too expensive to actually compete in the market. The project died as soon as we installed that first system.
The problem is not quality of the nanotubes, or material inhomogeneity (crystallographicly pure CNTs have been available for many years now), nor is it the price of CNTs. The limiting cost comes from the manufacturing processes that must be altered from exiting standards to accommodate CNTs. So... demo devices and prototypes are really not interesting anymore, we've had 20 years of those. We need to be seeing investment in foundries and factories designed to handle this material as an input. That's not going to happen at a university, and it's not likely to come from IBM or any of the other companies that have turned the nanotech PR-granting cycle into a cottage industry. If you're a commercial scientist being funded with grants, you have to be very careful not to get caught up in that death-spiral. The particular paper that this Slashdot summary is about is simply a slight alteration of science and techniques first developed (by IBM!) more than 10 years ago (they switched out titanium for molybdenum while keeping the same device geometry and non-scalable fabrication techniques). It's nice to see CNTs get attention again in a top tier journal, but this is not yet commercially relevant work.
We should be interested when IBM says they're setting up a production line to test manufacture, package, and integrate into assembly some thousands of these chips.