CH has not been "settled" (and there are obstacles to settling it) in any of the following senses:

$\quad 1.$ Finding a compellingly natural extension of standard set theory (more natural than ZF+CH) that decides CH, i.e., proves CH or proves its negation.

Here the main approach is blocked, because large cardinal axioms don't directly decide CH.

$\quad 2.$ Finding compelling arguments for replacing set theory, wherever it is used (e.g., as a foundation or formalization scheme), with set-theory-plus-CH.

This approach is blocked by the lack of "material consequences" of CH.  For example, the set of true first-order sentences of arithmetic is not affected by assuming CH, so there would be no concrete statement such as the Twin Prime Conjecture that could be proved only with the use of CH.  For similar reasons, it is unlikely that there exists a proof of any concrete statement that is much shorter or easier with CH than without it.

$\quad 3.$ Finding a compellingly natural alternative to standard axiomatic set theory (one whose theorems are not a subset or superset of the theorems in ZFC, and which comes to be preferred over ZFC) that can formulate and decide CH.  

This development would be a lot more significant than deciding CH, and would presumably affect a large number of other questions.  So to the extent that this possibility is relevant it should be discussed directly, and CH itself is immaterial.  More on this argument in the earlier thread: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/27755/knuths-intuition-that-goldbach-might-be-unprovable/27914#27914

(The same comments also apply to the negation of the Continuum Hypothesis; everything above is phrased in terms of CH only to avoid clunky qualifiers in the sentences.) 

EDIT:  I am not counting another possibility, where partial answers to CH are accepted as the best that can be done, or the original problem comes to be seen as the wrong formulation (but better formulations are decidable in ZFC).   For example, there are theorems to the effect that "any reasonably defined set of real numbers satisfies CH", and PCF theory that tries to capture the ZFC content of set theoretic cardinality questions while avoiding independence phenomena.   For purposes of this answer I refer only to approaches that would "settle" CH by exhibiting a formal system that is strong enough to derive CH or its negation, and is also adequate in other respects, such as being extremely psychologically or pragmatically compelling compared to systems (such as ZFC) that don't decide CH.