Older than what? I still don't understand.
The VG248QE is the oldest of all three monitors. The XL2411Z and the XL2420Z are the same age.
All three use the exact same panel, an AUO M240HW01 V8.
The VG248QE uses PWM backlight, like the BenQ XL2xxxT series, the whole Z series does not.
The VG248QE got absolutely awful gamma.
The XL2420Z is 50$ more than the XL2411Z and those 50$ get you:
-a display port
-another HDMI port
-USB 2.0 ports
-a wired remote for the OSD

I really don't understand it. You said

But recommended an even older monitor with the same panel and one monitor that is completely identical except it has USB ports.

My eyes are twitching.

Oh god you edited your post, it's even worse now.
Please stop.

Why are you doing this to me?
And then you get thermal paste for 10$. WHY?!
Let me summarize this:
-You added an aftermarket cooler even though none was needed.
-You picked a loud one so it won't even be quieter than the Intel stock cooler.
-And then you decided to get thermal paste, which will reduce temps by 2°C at best, which you don't need on a locked CPU anyway and makes absolutely no sense because getting a 35$ will do more than twice that while being quieter.

You say he doesn't plan on using Crossfire so you went ahead and picked a Z170 motherboard without proper SLI/Crossfire support. Let me remind you, what the two main reasons for getting a Z170 mobo are:
-overclocking support
-SLI/Crossfire support
He will get neither one and doesn't need them either. So why Z170 ffs?!

Then there's the RAM. Going from 16GB to 8GB should save him about half the price, 50$. Except you picked the second most expensive kit so he'd only save 8$. But hey, it's CL14 instead of CL15. He doesn't need those 50$ CL15, or 60$ CL13 or 70$ CL12, no, paying 92$ for CL14 is the correct way. Great thinking there.

Case is barely worth talking about, I still don't see the need for full ATX.

But the PSU, oh the PSU. I said a 100$ 750W PSU was overkill, so you chose a 650W PSU, which you yourself admitted is still overkill, for 106$.

Now I was fairly close to an aneurysm when you picked 750/650W PSUs for a <350W build. But then you took a look at the 380, which is woefully inadequate for getting 144fps in "a wide range of games" unless you want to get that 90s-no-aliasing-and-minecraft-textures feel, and replaced it with a 370. A 650W PSU for a 265W build.

I will come up with a better build once my blood pressure is back to normal.

#1
Here we go, two baseline builds, one Skylake, one Haswell, and there's still a lot of money left.
If you want overclocking no problem (although I don't think it's worth it).
If you want a 980 no problem either. I didn't put it in there right away because I don't know if it would make sense. I just need to know what settings in which games he's going for to determine how much GPU power you need to get 144fps.
The XL2411Z is my default recommendation. I'm not sure why yttrium calls it outdated then recommends the VG248QE which is older, worse and has less features, and the XL2420Z which is the same age and it's most notable feature over the XL2411Z is a non-wireless remote for the OSD.

Without further ado:
Skylake:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($204.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock B150M Pro4S Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($78.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($46.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($88.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 390 8GB PCS+ Video Card ($293.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 520W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $806.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-05 09:59 EDT-0400

Haswell:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($192.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97M Anniversary Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Pareema 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($88.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 390 8GB PCS+ Video Card ($293.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($43.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 520W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $760.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-05 10:09 EDT-0400

If you want a semi-modular PSU: Cooler Master VSM 550W

So same as always, never assume.
I assumed since you checked it on the router you checked it on the adapter as well.

Well at least it's working now.

Here's your current build:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6nGqFT

Let's go through this one part at a time.
CPU: Can't tell if it's a good decision because you didn't tell us what you're going to be using the pc for.

CPU cooler: All in one liquid coolers are bullshit. They are louder, hotter and more expensive than air coolers. Also you won't be needing more than the stock cooler anyway for a locked CPU. If you want a quieter cooler even a 20$ air cooler would be more than enough. Just don't get the 212 (Evo) since it's fairly loud.

Motherboard: The motherboard itself is fine but

So you're getting a full ATX case (for a µATX mobo) and a 750W PSU so you can go SLI/Crossfire, but then you choose a motherboard that doesn't support either. Make up your mind. If you're getting a second GPU for >200$ and a new mobo for 100$, maybe even a new CPU for >200$, 60$ for a PSU are a drop in the bucket. Might aswell save 30$ on the PSU now and get a newer and better model when you upgrade.

Memory: Again, I don't know what you'll use the pc for, so I can't tell wether or not you need 16GB. I highly doubt it though.

Storage: If you don't need more than 250GB don't get an HDD at all, at least for now. If you do, get at least a 1TB HDD. $/GB is horrible <1TB. For example the Seagate Barracuda 500GB is 42$, the 1TB model which is far newer and a lot faster is 47$.
The SSD is good.

GPU: Same again, don't know what you want to do, can't tell you what you should get.

Case: It's good, but see motherboard. Can't go SLI/Crossfire, got a µATX mobo, no need to spend 100$ on a full ATX case.

PSU: Good but expensive on Newegg, if you plan on ordering exclusive from Newegg, and also overkill = waste of money, see motherboard.

#9
Why not XL2411Z?

He rared a 1.84KB folder. Brought it down to 1.15KB. Saving us an enormous 707 Bytes.
So yes it's legit. The bulk of the size is due to the rollout.cfg, which is mostly a wall of text, not the sollyrollout.cfg.

Does it show up if you're right next to the router?
Have you tried inSSIDer?

#4
But did you see any thermal throttling? Temps?
You have to give us a bit more information, "no issues running burn test" could mean no thermal throttling and good temperatures or "it completed the test without catching fire".

Which "high end i7"?

They are identical, except the M is semi modular, obviously a step up from non-modular. So for the same price, yes please. For 95$ you won't find another semi modular PSU in AUS that's not garbage tier. Are you sure it won't be 109$ though? If so, you can get it from IJK for 104$.

#57
That has pretty much always been the plan, assemble an aerodynamical mess in orbit and send it to Mars.
About the N1, sorry to rain on your parade but while 95t to LEO, 23.5t to TLI is impressive compared to todays rockets (excluding the SLS) if it had actually worked, you have to compare it with the only rocket with the same purpose: The Saturn V. 140t to LEO, 48.6t to TLI.
What did we learn from this? Double the propulsive efficiency gets work done, just strapping more engines to it will make it explode.

I see the point, active converters would have a bit of lag but still, seeing someone get a more expensive yet slower GPU hurts me no matter what reasons they might have.

PSU should be fine.
You could get "only" 1600MHz CL9 RAM or 1866MHz CL10 slightly cheaper than the kit you picked.

One thing that would make significant difference is getting the i7-4790K from microcenter, either directly or via https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcproxy.
With that you should have enough money left for a nice cooler, e.g. Phanteks PH-TC14PE or Noctua NH-D14.

You're mixing something up. Life coming to earth on meteoroids/asteroids/comets/planetoids or by spacecraft is a legitimate theory (->we are all illegal aliens). The other way round it's a lot more difficult. Bacteria can't survive forever so you need a habitable planet and we haven't sent spacecraft to a whole lot of those, they're not exactly abundant in this solar system.
Also, even if we're going with the most optimistic theories for cooling + Late Heavy Bombardment we're still looking at 100 million years of cooling before Earth got solid ground. Only 30 to 50 million years after the solar system's formation Earth got hit by a Mars-sized planet. No chance in hell (that era was called Hadean (Hades ~ greek hell) because the floor was literally lava) of any life before that. More pessimistic theories say that life either didn't survive or didn't even exist until after the LHB, another 700 million years later.

#46
It's not about the fuel itself, rather how you store it. Saturn V or SLS are fucking massive, now imagine 20 times the weight and volume. Slapping 2 booster rockets on something to get it off the moon is easy, but you can't do that with 200. Building it on the Moon vs Low Earth Orbit depends on how much easier if at all the gravity makes it because you actually have to use more energy to land on the moon and start again compared to going directly. Getting to the moon directly is about the maximum that makes sense. For the past decades we've been using rockets that max out at 20-30t payload to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is supposed to manage 53t. The SLS Block 1 93t, Block 2 130t. The Saturn V was 140t. All in one go won't work, you can't build something that big in Earth's gravity unless you spent literally millions of tons on structure (think skyscraper). So the plan is to assemble just what goes to Mars in orbit. That means you only have to build something about the size of the Saturn V or SLS, a few thousand tons. Structural integrity is obviously not a problem, those things held on Earth so without gravity you can build it even lighter. Compare that with a few hundred thousand tons + structure to actually hold it together if you were to start on Earth.

Then there's fuel cost vs actual cost. 90-95% of the spacecraft will be fuel. Building a huge few hundred thousand tons (empty weight a few ten thousand tons) is insane. Getting a few hundred tons of spacecraft into orbit to assemble it and a few thousand tons of fuel after that is easy. Liquid fuel, tank shape is irrelevant, you can max out relatively cheap commercial rockets (SpaceX's goal <1000$ per pound to orbit) and just repeat until everything is up there. If you wanted to really cheap out you could use a single reusable system. Fuel cost stays about the same (structural overhead on both small and huge rocket is significant) but you only have to build one small rocket instead of a huge rocket 200 times the size. The cost benefit should be obvious. Cost of assembling the actual Mars stage in orbit that you'd have to build either way will be way less than that. Also it will be lighter and easier to build since it doesn't have to hold together under gravity.

A moon base would just mean that the infrastructure to do it would already exist + economies of scale.
Unless we build a space elevator, but I don't think that'll be before our first manned Mars mission.

Uhm, we have plenty of water here.

Let's get back to the moon first. Fusion reactors would be very helpful for that, not to help us get there, but to make us get there. Helium-3 would be a good incentive.

It's also way easier to get to Mars from the Moon. Thanks to earths escape velocity you need about 12 times a vehicle's weight in rocket propellant to get away. On the Moon 2 times is plenty. You still need to get to Mars which is about the same effort as starting from Earth. Also assembling a spacecraft on the moon might be easier than doing it in orbit. A base on Moon would mean that either in orbit or on the Moon we'd have the facilities to assemble it which is basically mandatory. Going directly from Earth to Mars would mean ~250:1 fuel ratio.

EDIT: #43/44
Yes, the Fermi Paradox is the question why we haven't seen it even though we should've. It not existing is only one of the possible answers. Keep in mind that while we are listening (SETI) we are not broadcasting. You'd need way too much energy for that, we can only do focused transmission and some argue (you can look it up if you want to get deeper into the Fermi Paradox) that we shouldn't even do that. So life existing but choosing not to communicate is a possibility.

About solar panel maintenance: It's quite the opposite. The rovers were only expected to operate 3 months before the accumulated dust would render them inoperable due to the solar panels power output being too low, but the wind kept cleaning the them. Also all the maintenance needed to solve that problem can be done with a broom.