Not a bad article, but the jpegs that come out of most cameras nowadays are more than sufficient for most people, provided they are shooting them at the highest setting which many cameras mark as large or fine.
Contrary to what the article says, a good quality jpeg is not extremely sensitive to editing and can be pushed around a lot in photoshop with good results. Provided you keep your original jpeg and work on a duplicate, you can do a wide range of things in post. You only loose quality when you save and close the file, but you can still do this numerous times without any noticeable visible degradation. If you are a confident photographer and know how to expose and white balance, your jpegs should need little if any adjustment.
Jpegs are processed in camera from the raw data to provide the average expectation of how the photo should look, eg contrast, saturation, brightness etc.
If you are going to do this yourself from the RAW file then you need to be confident that your screen is properly calibrated if you want good results.
It's a good exercise to shoot both RAW and a jpeg (an option available on many cameras) and then develop the RAW file yourself. Does the resulting file look better then the jpeg? If you're not too cluey with the RAW software then the jpeg can often look better! (after all, a hell of a lot of work went into developing the algorithms that process the raw camera data into an optimal jpeg).
Of course if you a really serious about photography then you'll want images that give you maximum quality and flexibility, and then the answer is resoundingly RAW, but don't think shooting in RAW will make you a better photographer!
