A few comments:

The statement "The best programs for dealing with these files, though,
are offered as plug-ins for such industry standards as Adobe Photoshop
or Photoshop Elements" dismisses some major 3rd-party raw converters.
(It also dismisses Adobe Lightroom!)

It isn't true that "RAW files are created by your camera in a
proprietary format unique to each camera manufacturer". Some cameras
use DNG, which is a common raw format defined by Adobe.

It isn't true that "All digital camera manufacturers provide special
software for processing their own RAW files". They may provide more
general software, for example the Leica DMR back ships with PS
Elements.

The statement "The reason most programs can read and load JPGs is that
they have long been the publishing industry's standard format" strains
credibility! What about TIFF? Whatever the merits of JPEG, being THE
publishing industry's standard format isn't one of them.

The statement "Another advantage of using the RAW file is that, other
than deleting it, you can't corrupt it" is bizarre! Of course you can
corrupt it! (Anyone who is aware of current problems with MS Photo
Info, and NEF codecs for Vista, will be aware of that). This appears
to buy into the myth that raw files don't get updated by software,
whereas lots of products update raw files.

The statement "A computer screen is set up to handle no more than 72
dots per inch" is another myth. For example my current computer screen
is about 97 pixels (NOT dots) per inch, and others go much higher.

The statement"And this is not necessarily a bad thing because you can
still change all of those elements, be it to a somewhat limited
degree, in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, but when you do the
quality of the image will deteriorate significantly" is a bit
misleading. It is interesting to process a high quality JPEG from a
camera in (say) Lightroom or ACR 4.0 and see just what factors can
easily be changed with relatively little deterioration.

I feel that the article dumbs-down, by distorting the facts rather
than providing a simple explanation of them.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/