sorry but i'm totally unconvinced of the results and I personally think this is probably a bad article to be published as it may misslead.
Isolation levels are critical to data intergrity and as mentioned above scans with dirty reads are capable of returning duplicated data where duplicates cannot exist - Itzik Ben-Gan demonstrated this to the UK SQL Server User Group last year, if you check out Tony Rogerson's blog he has code which demonstrates this. http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/11/16/1345.aspx
You have not run these tests on a server, sorry but a laptop does not count! I did run a few comparisions on a large clustered server and as far as query plans and io stats from QA the nolock hint made no difference. I couldn't find any queries slow enough to measure time diffs , but I accept that different locking strategies may well impact duration. Possibly running this to compare stats in profiler would give a better indication. Where there is contention ( most oltp apps ) then you probably would make some gains on a table scan, but hopefully you wouldn't want to do table scans anyway.
Your query is table scanning, which will pretty well always invoke parallelism as the query cost for a table scan on a largish table does this. I agree with Wesley, you should have done this with maxdop specified.
Please please avid posters who have read this article check out the effects of dirty reads and isolation levels before you start adding nolock hints all through your code as a tuning aid, it's not and should not be used as such unless you really really don't care if your data may be incorrect.
On the matter of testing it is vital to test on equal o/s, sql editions and some measure of compatible hardware as a production environment.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]