You can correct someone's error without inferring that they are "criminally stupid".
I think you are wound up to tight and you should consider that.
Allow me a brief indulgence, so that I can frame my answer.
As a child of the very late 80's, I've seen the rise of media that exists only to interpret interpretations of news. With the functional collapse of journalism into political rhetoric, the only way that you can get news is to either interpolate truth from two opposing political reports, or to search out the original source and interpret it for yourself.
Case in point, Baltimore. The police have a track record of abusing their detainees, the people are functionally just above the poverty line set by the government (on average), and yet this is not what the main stream media reported. Fox reported that a bunch of thugs were looting and rioting. More liberal media outlets showed the violence against protestors, and claimed racism. Neither source really reported on anything, they presupposed an interpretation based upon political agendas and "found" facts to support their presuppositions.
In fact, the shows doing the best reporting are comedic. Seriously, consider that the Daily Show, Nightly Show, and Last Week Tonight are doing a better job reporting facts than traditional reporting outlets. WTF?
Based upon this indulgence, allow yourself a moment in my shoes. Qubit interprets and posts a news article, which itself is an interpretation on a report that interprets harvested data. If you'd ever played the phone game in elementary school, you'd know that with this many interpretations many of the facts are lost along the way, and incorrect conclusions can be drawn.
The thing is, this is the internet. Everybody lists their sources, and the Escapist is no different. It took me less than 30 seconds to find their single source, and link to it. It brought us a NASA post, which itself had no source. That's reasonably taken as the relevant factual source, so I read it. While dry, the article is not given to hyperbole. It doesn't cite FTL speeds, it doesn't conjecture about Star Trek, and it doesn't claim anything special. It states the general conditions of testing, the relevant results, how these results were confirmed, and conjectures about how such a device could be used. Nothing amazing, but factually correct.
After two interpretations we get "
Has NASA stumbled upon the basis for a real life faster than light drive?"
Patently, no. To grab headlines with this crap, while linking to a source that basically proves not, is stupid. If along the lines anyone had done their research, they would have smacked the person who suggested this and told them it was a bold faced lie and easily disprovable. To post this as a headline makes journalistic credibility something you don't have.
If you want to post a headline based in truth, how about the amazing stuff? Perhaps: "NASA's new drive could make a trip to Mars your summer destination." While hyperbolic, follow it up with the projected 70 day travel to Mars, 90 days there, and 70 day return trip. What about "Move over Hubble, satellites of the future could spend decades in space without a drop of fuel." Again, hyperbolic as the nuclear reactor would need material. On the other hand refueling reactive mass rockets would be a thing of the past. Finally, why not go with "Soon the International space station could be the greenest vehicle in Earth's history." Not even hyperbolic this time. 925,000 pounds of matter that absorbs sunlight, uses one of these drives to maintain orbit, and emits no burnt fuel is green in the extreme (boy that bit of stupid hurts to say).
In short, yes I'm wound tight. Crap reporting does that to me. If you cite sources you'd better make sure to check them, and if you're reposting news you'd better check their work. If you don't there will be someone who calls you out on this crap. That's not a reflection on the author, but a reflection on a broken system where people accept what is said at face value. Nobody should get away with that.
Edit:
Whether it is a failing of me to make the point, or simply wording it incorrectly, I need to clarify something. I am not attacking Qubit personally, and have no intention of insulting anyone else directly. What I want is factual reporting, without hyperbole.
The original data is dry, but you expect that from NASA. The Escapist reports it in relations to Star Trek, which is stretching things but reasonable. From one rather substantial embellishment, to a patently incorrect article title, requires only one more interpretation. That seems rather problematic.
Think I'm being a bit of a prick, I'll concede that point. At the same time, let's review. NASA never says anything is traveling FTL, only that a beam of photons shot through the engine take less time to reach a detector than light speed would allow over the given distance of normal space. The Escapist states specifically (as cited by Qubit) that nothing is moving FTL. Despite this, the title is about NASA stumbling onto FTL. That seems a bit of a problem, no?
Of course, let's make sure I'm shooting straight. I started out saying this isn't news after all. First off, NASA hasn't used the Star Trek terms, so I lose points for conflating their research with the Escapist's reporting. I followed up with a factual error on the probes reaching Pluto. Points lost there, but I admitted to error. I wind up stating that the drive creates acceleration through an unknown methodology. While technically correct, the article does suggest some preliminary theories. This is a toss up, so I'll call it a net wash.
On the whole, I've failed factually once and failed to properly cite interpretation once. Not horrible, but definitely not up to journalistic standards. The only reason I should be listened to is that it's a direct interpretation of the article linked to with actual facts. Perhaps it's asking too much, but that's what I want to see. I don't need to know what you think, of what she thinks, of what he thinks, of what was reported by a researcher. That much interpretation is criminally stupid, because the facts are lost to interpretation.
unscientifically you travel faster than the particle/object then you can study them at your leisure slow down then speed up and again study them at your leisure 
